THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  ILLINOIS 

LIBRARY 


.2. 


<x    i 


r  Library  Materiaisi  The  Minimum  *•  "» 


The  person  charging  this  material  is  responsible  for 
its  return  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  withdrawn 
on  or  before  the  Latest  Date  stamped  below. 
Theft,  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books  are  reasons  for  discipli- 
nary action  and  may  result  in  dismissal  from  the  University 
To  renew  call  Telephone  Center,  333-8400 

UNIVERSITY    OF    ILLINOIS    LIBRARY    AT    URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


L161— O-1096 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 

Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


BULLETIN  NO.  253 


THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A  SILAGE  CROP 

FEEDING  VALUE  FOR  DAIRY  COWS;  COMPOSITION 
AND  DIGESTIBILITY  WHEN  ENSILED  AT  DIF- 
FERENT STAGES  OF  MATURITY 

BY  W.  B.  NEVENS 


URBANA,  ILLINOIS,  JULY,  1924 


CONTENTS  OF  BULLETIN  No.  253 

PAGE 

INTRODUCTION 185 

REVIEW  OF  PREVIOUS  WORK j 185 

GROWING  AND  ENSILING  THE  SUNFLOWERS 188 

PLAN  OF  FEEDING  TRIAL 189 

RESULTS  OF  FEEDING  TRIAL 193 

Milk  and  Fat  Production 193 

Economy  of  Production 193 

Palatability 198 

General  Discussion 200 

COMPOSITION  OF  SUNFLOWER  SILAGE 203 

ACRE  YIELD  OF  DIGESTIBLE  NUTRIENTS 210 

DIGESTIBILITY  OF  SUNFLOWER  SILAGE 211 

EFFECT  OF  SUNFLOWER  SILAGE  UPON  COMPOSITION  OF  MILK..   213 

SUMMARY 214 

LITERATURE  CITED   215 

APPENDIX   (Tables)    217 


FEEDING   VALUE   FOR    DAIRY   COWS;   COMPOSITION 
AND  DIGESTIBILITY  WHEN  ENSILED  AT  DIF- 
FERENT STAGES  OF  MATURITY 

BY  W.  B.  NEVENS,  ASSISTANT  CHIEF  IN  DAIRY  CATTLE  FEEDING 

The  sunflower  is  an  important  silage  crop  in  sections  of  Illinois 
in  which  successful  corn  raising  is  uncertain  owing  to  drouth  and 
the  ravages  of  chinch-bugs.  Some  difficulties,  however,  have  been 
experienced  in  the  use  of  sunflowers  for  silage  as  a  substitute  for  corn. 
A  good  quality  of  silage  is  not  always  secured  and  as  a  result  the 
normal  level  of  milk  production  frequently  is  lowered.  Also,  digestive 
troubles  sometimes  occur.  Since  somewhat  similar  difficulties  were 
encountered  in  the  early  use  of  corn  silage  and  these  were  largely 
overcome  by  harvesting  and  ensiling  the  corn  at  a  comparatively 
advanced  stage  of  maturity,  it  seemed  likely  that  a  practical  solution 
for  the  problems  involved  might  be  had  by  making  a  study  of  the 
feeding  value  for  milk  production  of  silage  made  from  sunflowers 
harvested  at  different  stages  of  maturity.  Accordingly  an  experiment 
was  undertaken  with  this  object  in  view,  the  results  of  which  are 
reported  in  this  bulletin.  Studies  of  the  composition  and  digestibility 
of  the  silage  were  considered  essential  parts  of  the  investigation.1 

REVIEW  OF  PREVIOUS  WORK 

A  review  of  the  literature  covering  investigations  of  sunflower 
silage  was  first  made  in  order  to  determine,  if  possible,  whether  the 
experimental  work  so  far  conducted  pointed  to  a  method  of  averting 
the  undesirable  features  arising  in  the  use  of  sunflowers  for  silage. 

Value  for  Milk  Production. — A  considerable  number  of  feeding 
trials  have  been  conducted  in  which  sunflower  silage  and  corn  silage 
have  been  compared  with  regard  to  their  feeding  value  for  milk 
production.  Reports  of  the  work  indicate  a  wide  variance  in  the  re- 
sults secured.  In  several  cases2- 6- 13- 19- 24-  26-  29- 30- 32- 37  it  was  found 
that  sunflower  silage  was  "equal"  to  corn  silage,  nearly  equal,  or 
at  least  gave  "excellent  results."  In  a  number  of  instances, 1-9' 10' 14- 
31.36,  however,  decreased  production  was  noted  as  a  result  of  feeding 


1The  results  of  the  investigation  of  the  composition  and  yield  of  the  sun- 
flower crop  at  different  stages  of  maturity  are  to  be  published  in  a  later  bulletin. 

185 


186  BULLETIN  No.  253  [July, 

sunflower  silage.  One  report23  states  that  cows  fed  sunflower  silage 
and  corn  silage  in  alternate  periods  for  one  season  maintained  their 
milk  yields,  but  that  during  the  following  season,  when  they  were 
fed  sunflower  silage  continuously,  they  dropped  in  milk  flow.  In  two 
cases25-38  sunflower  silage  is  reported  as  superior  to  corn  silage  for 
dairy  cows. 

Palatability. — The  reports  of  the  relative  palatability  of  corn 
and  of  sunflower  silage  are  also  somewhat  conflicting.  In  several 
cases1'6'8-29  it  is  stated  that  sunflower  silage  was  eaten  as  readily 
as  corn  silage  or  other  kinds  of  silage,25  but  the  majority  of  writers 
10, 14,  23, 26, 36, 39,  43, 44  mentioning  this  fact  state  that  sunflower  silage 
is  less  palatable  than  corn  silage.  One  writer23  notes  that  there  was 
a  decreased  amount  of  sunflower  silage  consumed  as  the  feeding  con- 
tinued, and  another27  observes  that  "sunflower  silage  varies  greatly 
in  quality  and  palatability."  Sunflower  silage  at  one  station10  showed 
' ( a  distinct  lack  of  palatability. ' '  Silage  made  from  the  later  cuttings 
of  sunflowers  at  the  Wisconsin  Station45  was  less  palatable  than  that 
of  earlier  cuttings. 

Physiological  Effects. — In  one  report3  cows  fed  sunflower  silage 
are  said  to  have  appeared  to  be  "just  as  healthy"  as  those  fed  com 
silage,  and  another  report6  states  that  "no  bad  effects"  were  noted 
and  that  the  condition  of  the  cattle  fed  sunflower  silage  was  superior 
to  that  of  the  cattle  fed  either  corn  or  peas  and  oats  silage.  One 
investigator37  states  that  "all  cows  were  in  splendid  condition  at 
the  close  of  the  experiment."  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  stated  by  one 
writer9  that  "sunflower  silage  does  not  have  a  desirable  physical 
effect  on  the  cow."  In  one  case12  a  slight  tendency  to  scouring  was 
observed  in  calves  fed  sunflower  silage. 

A  pronounced  tendency  to  diuresis  (greatly  increased  excretion" 
of  urine)  was  noted  in  a  few  cases12- 30  as  a  result  of  feeding  sunflower 
silage. 

Data  are  also  given  to  show  that  cows  receiving  sunflower  silage 
gained  less  in  weight  or  suffered  greater  losses  in  weight  than  the 
cows  fed  the  control  rations.6- 38-  44  In  one  case1  no  difference  in  loss 
or  gains  was  noted  between  the  groups  of  cows  compared. 

Digestibility. — Digestion  trials  with  sunflower  silage  have  been 
conducted  at  a  number  of  experiment  stations.15'28'34-41  While  the 
reports  of  these  trials  are  valuable  contributions  to  our  knowledge  of 
the  value  of  sunflower  silage,  the  data  in  the  majority  of  the  experi- 
ments show  a  marked  lack  of  uniformity  in  the  results  secured  with 
the  different  animals  employed  in  the  same  digestion  trial,  and  in 
the  coefficients  secured  at  the  different  stations.  Further,  they  con- 
tribute little  or  no  information  on  the  digestibility  of  silage  from  sun- 
flowers harvested  at  different  stages  of  maturity. 


1P24]  THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A  SILAGE  CROP  187 

Effect  of  Stage  of  Maturity. — But  one  investigation7  of  the  com- 
parative feeding  value  of  sunflower  silage  made  from  plants  cut  at 
different  stages  of  maturity  has  come  to  the  attention  of  the  writer, 
and  the  results  of  this  trial  were  inconclusive.  More  extensive  study 
has  been  made,  however,  of  the  composition  of  the  sunflower  plant 
at  different  stages.  L^1-40  The  Montana  Station11  reports  sunflower 
silage  made  "from  plants  in  practically  all  stages  of  growth  has  al- 
ways been  of  a  quality  ranging  from  fairly  good  to  excellent  .  .  . 
Silage  made  from  plants  in  early  stages  of  maturity  is  likely  to  be 
more  acid,  darker  in  color,  and  of  slightly  inferior  quality 'to  that 
made  from  plants  in  the  later  stages."  Chemical  analyses  made  at 
different  stations1- 40  indicate  that  the  pknt  continues  to  increase  in 
dry  matter  until  maturity  and  that  apparently  the  stage  of  maximum 
food  value  is  at  the  "dough"  or  later  stages.  Fitch16  attributes  the 
poor  results  following  the  feeding  of  silage  made  from  wild  sun- 
flowers, in  part  at  least,  to  the  late  cutting  of  the  sunflowers.  Re- 
sults at  the  Wisconsin  Station45  led  to  the  conclusion  that  sunflowers 
should  be  cut  during  the  early  blossoming  stage.  The  "preponder- 
ance of  poor  silage  comes  from  sunflowers  cut  when  quite  mature, 
while  most  of  the  good  silage  is  made  by  ensiling  during  the  early 
blossoming  stage." 

Effect  on  Composition  of  Milk. — Several  investigators1  • 6>  7  have 
noted  that  the  feeding  of  sunflower  silage  had  no  apparent  effect  upon 
the  composition  of  the  milk  and  produced  no  objectionable  flavor. 
One  report20  states  that  the  butter  fat  produced  on  sunflower  silage 
rations  had  a  slightly  higher  olein  content,  while  another  mentions  a 
slightly  increased  iodin  number  and  refractive  index  of  the  butter  fat. 

Summary. — The  lack  of  uniformity  in  the  results  secured  at  dif- 
ferent experiment  stations  would  indicate  that  the  sunflower  silage 
used  varied  greatly  in  character  and  quality,  possibly  owing  to  cli- 
matic factors  but  probably,  in  part  at  least,  to  the  ensiling  of  sun- 
flowers at  different  stages  of  maturity.  It  should  be  pointed  out 
further,  that  corn  silage  varies  greatly  in  composition,  being  in- 
fluenced by  such  factors  as  maturity  of  the  crop  at  the  time  of  en- 
siling, water  content  of  the  crop,  proportion  of  ears  to  stalks,  etc. 
The  data  secured  thru  analyses  of  a  large  number  of  corn  silage  sam- 
ples at  this  Station,  together  with  a  survey  of  analyses  reported  from 
other  stations,  indicate  that  there  is  ample  justification  for  the  assump- 
tion that  the  corn  silage  fed  in  comparison  with  sunflower  silage  at 
different  stations  was  not  of  exactly  the  same  composition,  and  that 
the  comparison  of  sunflower  silage  with  corn  silage  upon  a  pound- 
for-pound  basis  is  not  a  thoroly  reliable  method  for  arriving  at  the 
feeding  value  of  sunflower  silage. 


188  BULLETIN  No.  253  [July, 


GROWING  AND  ENSILING  THE  SUNFLOWERS 

In  beginning  the  experimental  work  at  this  Station,  a  field  was 
planted  to  Mammoth  Russian  sunflowers  on  May  18,  1921.  The  rows 
were  3  feet  6  inches  apart  and  the  plants  averaged  about  10  inches 
apart  in  the  row.  Three  wooden  stave  silos,  each  10  feet  by  24  feet 
in  size,  and  roofed,  were  used  for  ensiling  the  crop. 

The  first  cutting  was  made  on  August  13,  eighty-seven  days  from 
the  time  of  planting,  and  was  ensiled  in  Silo  No.  8.  At  that  time 
about  23  percent  of  the  plants  were  coming  into  bloom ;  that  is,  they 
plainly  showed  the  yellow  rays  of  the  heads,  and  most  of  the  rest  of 
the  plants  were  in  the  bud  stage.  The  estimates  of  the  proportion 
of  the  plants  in  bloom  were  made  by  actual  count  of  the  number  of 
blossoms  in  one  row  of  the  sunflowers  (about  one-fourth  mile  in 
length)  upon  the  day  of  filling  the  silo.  The  leaves  on  only  the  lower 
two  or  three  feet  of  the  stalks  had  died.  The  plants  contained  so 
much  water  that  soon  after  they  were  ensiled,  a  large  quantity  of 
juice  oozed  out  around  the  doors  and  at  the  bottom  of  the  silo.1  This 
silage  was  subjected  to  leaching  by  rains,  a  total  of  1.22  inches  falling 
before  the  roof  of  the  silo  had  been  completed. 

A  second  cutting  was  made  on  September  1  and  2,  106  days  from 
the  time  of  planting,  when  approximately  95  percent  of  the  plants 
were  in  bloom.  At  that  stage  nearly  one-half  of  the  leaves  on  the 
plants  had  been  killed  by  rust.  These  plants  contained  a  smaller  per- 
centage of  water  than  those  ensiled  August  13.  Only  a  small  amount 
of  juice  was  lost  by  leakage  from  the  silo  (Silo  No.  7). 

A  third  cutting  from  the  same  field  was  made  on  September  21 
and  22,  and  was  ensiled  in  Silo  No.  9.  At  that  stage  of  maturity,  the 
weight  of  the  crop  per  acre  had  decreased  greatly,  the  plants  having 
become  very  low  in  water  content.  Most  of  the  plants  had  seeds  in 
the  dough  or  more  mature  stage,  a  small  amount  of  them  shelling  out 
in  the  handling  of  the  crop.  A  few  of  the  plants  were  entirely  dead 
at  the  time  of  cutting,  owing  largely  to  the  effects  of  rust,  but  most 
of  the  plants  had  a  number  of  green  leaves  near  the  tops  of  the  stalks. 
During  most  of  the  growing  season  some  plants  were  much  more  ad- 
vanced than  others. 

The  silage  thus  secured  was  fed  to  dairy  cows  as  described  in  the 
following  pages. 


'  It  is  suggested  that  this  difficulty  can  be  avoided  by  allowing  the  plants  to 
wilt  in  the  field  after  harvesting  before  bringing  to  the  silo. 


THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A  SILAGE  CROP 


189 


PLAN  OF  FEEDING  TRIAL 

ANIMALS  USED 

As  many  cows  of  the  pure-bred  dairy  herd  as  were  available  were 
employed.  These  were  divided  into  two  similar  groups.  The  make-up 
of  the  groups  remained  constant  thruout  the  feeding  of  sunflower 
silage  from  the  first  silo,  but  when  feeding  from  the  second  and  third 
silos  was  begun,  it  was  necessary  in  a  few  cases  to  make  substitutions 
of  cows  because  of  decreased  milk  production  occasioned  by  advancing 
lactation.  The  groups  were  also  increased  in  size  as  additional  cows 
became  available.  However,  records  of  production  are  reported  for 
only  those  cows  which  were  in  milk  during  the  two  consecutive  periods 
in  which  a  certain  cutting  of  sunflower  silage  was  fed.  The  age,  breed, 
and  stage  of  lactation  of  the  cows  used  are  shown  in  Table  1. 

EXPERIMENTAL  PERIODS 

In  order  to  get  the  best  possible  comparisons  of  the  feeding  values 
for  milk  production  of  the  sunflower  silage  obtained  from  plants  at 
three  different  stages  of  maturity,  it  was  planned  to  compare  each 

TABLE  1. — BREED,  AGE,  AND  STAGE  OF  LACTATION  OF  Cows  USED  IN  EXPERIMENT 


Cow 
No. 

Breed 

Age,  10-7-21 

Days  in  milk  at  beginning  of  periods 

Period  I 

(10-7-21) 

Period  III 
(12-16-21  ) 

Period  V 

(2-17-22) 

Group  A 


155 

Jersey  

yrs. 
16 

mos. 
0 

diys 
13 

44 

114 

117 

280 

Jersey  

2 

7 

4 

157 

227 

235 

Jersey     

7 

4 

3 

9 

270 

Guernsey     

3 

7 

3 

63 

282 

Guernsey  

7 

2 

2 

73 

143 

206 

287 

Guernsey     

2 

5 

12 

54 

124 

187 

74 

Ayrshire        

15 

4 

21 

62 

125 

134 

Ayrshire        

13 

0 

9 

202 

272 

335 

277 

Ayrshire        

2 

10 

11 

8 

254 

Holstein        .... 

6 

9 

2 

26 

89 

263 

Holstein  

3 

9 

26 

98 

168 

231 

Group  B 


253 

Holstein  

6 

10 

15 

21 

84 

255 

Holstein  

6 

8 

27 

31 

101 

264 

135 

Ayrshire  

12 

10 

21 

122 

192 

255 

224 

Ayrshire  

6 

7 

22 

2 

65 

271 

Guernsey     

3 

3 

4 

27 

90 

278 

Guernsey  

2 

7 

26 

181 

250 

245 

Guernsey  

5 

6 

5 

28 

291 

Guernsey  

2 

3 

1 

2 

65 

232 

Jersey  

12 

0 

10 

67 

130 

279 

Jersey  

5 

11 

6 

279 

190 


BULLETIN  No.  253 


[July, 


cutting  of  silage  with  corn  silage.  This  plan  accomplished  the  two- 
fold purpose  of  comparing  the  values  of  the  three  cuttings  of  sun- 
flower silage  with  each  other  and  at  the  same  time  of  comparing  the 
sunflower  silage  with  corn  silage.  Accordingly  the  feeding  periods 
were  arranged  as  follows: 


Period 

Group    of   cows 

Silage  fed 

I 

A 

Sunflower  silage,  2d  cutting 

B 

Corn  silage 

II 

A 

Corn  silage 

B 

Sunflower  silage,  2d  cutting 

III 

A 

Sunflower  silage,  3d  cutting 

B 

Corn  silage 

IV 

A 

Corn  silage 

B 

Sunflower  silage,  3d  cutting 

V 

A 

Sunflower  silage,  1st  cutting 

B 

Corn  silage 

VI 

A 

Corn  silage 

B 

Sunflower  silage,  1st  cutting 

Each  experimental  feeding  period  was  28  days  in  length  and  was 
preceded  by  a  7-day  preliminary,  or  transition,  period.  Whenever 
sunflower  silage  was  to  be  fed  during  a  certain  period,  it  was  gradu- 
ally substituted  for  the  corn-silage  ration  during  the  preliminary 
period,  but  whenever  the  ration  containing  corn  silage  replaced  the 
sunflower  silage  ration,  the  change  was  made  abruptly.  In  one  in- 
stance, Period  IV,  the  length  of  the  period  was  unavoidably  short- 
ened to  21  days  because  the  sunflower  silage  in  the  bottom  of  the  silo 
was  found  spoiled. 

Several  conditions  made  it  necessary  to  employ  shorter  experi- 
mental periods  than  are  considered  desirable  in  most  feeding  experi- 


FIG.  1 — HARVESTING  THE  FIRST  CUTTING  OF  SUNFLOWERS 
Hand  cutting  seemed  the  best  way  to  prevent  losing  any  of  the  crop  in  harvest- 
ing!    At  this  cutting  the  stalks  were  from  ten  to  fifteen  feet  tall  and  were  not 
tangled  to  any  extent. 


19S4]  THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A  SILAGE  CROP  191 

merits.  Since  the  chief  object  of  the  feeding  trial  was  to  compare  the 
feeding  value  for  milk  production  of  silage  made  from  sunflowers 
harvested  at  three  different  stages  of  maturity,  it  was  necessary  to 
complete  the  comparison  within  a  relatively  short  period  of  time  in 
order  to  finish  it  during  one  lactation  period.  Also  it  was  desirable 
to  feed  the  silage  during  the  cooler  months  of  the  year  in  order  to 
avoid  any  changes  in  the  composition  of  the  silage  which  might  be 
induced  by  hot  weather.  It  is  believed,  further,  that  the  results  se- 
cured in  the  short  periods  used  were  more  favorable  than  might  have 
been  the  case  had  longer  periods  of  sunflower  feeding  with  conse- 
quently greater  decrease  in  milk  flow  been  employed. 

RATIONS 

The  two  groups  of  cows  were  fed  grain  and  hay  from  the  same  sup- 
ply thruout  the  experiment.  The  grain  used  consisted  of  a  mixture 
of  600  pounds  ground  corn,  600  pounds  ground  oats,  600  pounds 
wheat  bran,  and  250  pounds  of  old-process  linseed  oil  meal.  A  sup- 
ply was  ground  and  mixed  twice  weekly.  The  amount  of  grain  fed 
was  proportional  to  the  milk  production,  adjustments  being  made  at 
the  close  of  each  experimental  week  after  feed  and  milk  records  for 
that  week  had  been  compared. 

A  supply  of  western  alfalfa  hay  of  good,  uniform  quality  was 
purchased  in  a  quantity  (about  two  carloads)  sufficient  for  the  entire 
test.  It  was  planned  to  feed  the  hay  in  an  amount  proportional  to 
the  amount  of  silage  consumed,  but  this  was  found  impractical  on 
account  of  the  failure  of  a  few  cows  to  consume  a  reasonable  amount 
of  silage.  It  was  fed,  therefore,  in  such  amounts  as  the  cows  would 
consume  readily. 

Sunflower  silage  was  to  form  as  large  a  proportion  of  the  ration 
as  possible  in  order  that  its  influence  on  milk  production  and  health 
might  be  exerted  to  the  fullest  extent.  The  amounts  consumed,  how- 
ever, were  much  less  than  had  been  anticipated.  The  cows  were  al- 
ways fed  all  they  would  consume,  and  in  a  few  cases  the  amount  of 
hay  was  limited  somewhat  in  order  to  induce  the  cows  to  eat  more  of 
the  silage.  The  corn  silage  was  fed  in  such  amounts  as  the  cows 
would  clean  up  readily.  Forty  pounds  daily  was  found  to  be  the 
maximum  amount  desired. 

In  feeding  the  cows,  the  silage  was  first  weighed  out  in  a  large 
weighing  scoop,  the  grain  added,  and  the  whole  emptied  into  the 
manger.  The  hay  was  fed  after  the  bulk  of  the  silage  and  grain  had 
been  consumed.  The  silage,  grain,  and  hay  were  each  fed  twice  daily, 
and  any  refused  feed  was  weighed  back  each  day. 


192 


BULLETIN  No.  253 


ANALYSIS  OF  FEEDS 


[July, 


The  silage  and  hay  were  sampled  at  two-week  intervals  from  the 
supply  to  be  used  the  following  two  weeks."  A  core  of  silage  to  a 
depth  of  24  to  30  inches  was  taken  at  several  points  on  the  surface 
of  the  silage  in  the  silo.  These  several  portions,  in  total  about  1.5 
pounds,  were  united  for  the  silage  sample,  immediately  weighed,  and 
dried  in  a  drying  oven  at  a  temperature  of  45°  to  50°  C.  In  most 
cases  two  silage  samples,  together  representing  a  four-weeks  feeding 
period,  were  composited  for  the  chemical  determinations. 

At  two-week  intervals  a  few  bales  of  hay  were  selected  at  random 
from  the  supply  and  a  core  was  taken  centrally  lengthwise  thru  each 


FIG.  2. — THE  SUNFLOWERS  WERE  CUT  AT  THREE  DIFFERENT  STAGES 

Silage  made  from  sunflowers  cut  87  days  after  planting  (illustration  at  the 
left)  was  the  most  palatable  and  kept  the  milk  flow  of  the  cows  closest  to  the  level 
of  corn  silage  rations.  About  one-fourth  of  the  plants  were  coming  into  bloom  at 
this  cutting.  Most  of  the  upper  leaves  were  green  and  succulent,  altho  those  on 
the  lower  two  or  three  feet  of  the  stalks  were  dead. 

By  the  time  of  the  second  cutting,  close  to  95  percent  of  the  plants  were  in 
bloom  and  nearly  half  the  leaves  had  been  killed  by  rust. 

When  the  third  cutting  was  made,  the  leaves  on  all  but  the  upper  two  or  three 
feet  of  the  plants  had  died  and  many  of  the  plants  themselves  were  dead.  Both 
this  cutting  and  the  second  were  made  too  late  for  the  best  silage. 


"A  roughage  sampler  which  has  been  developed  in  the  dairy  production  labora- 
tory of  this  Station  was  used  for  the  purpose.  See  Jour.  Indus,  and  Engin. 
Chem.  16,  386.  1924. 


W24]  THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A  SILAGE  CROP  193 

bale  while  still  unbroken.  The  cores,  about  one  pound  in  total  weight, 
were  united  for  the  hay  sample.  Two  samples  were  composited  later 
for  analysis,  as  in  the  case  of  the  silage. 

As  each  batch  of  grain  was  ground,  samples  were  taken  by  means 
of  a  double-tube  brass  grain  trier.  Three  trierfuls  were  mixed  for 
the  sample  of  each  batch.  Eight  samples,  representing  the  same 
four-weeks  feeding  period  as/  for  the  silage,  were  composited  for 
analysis. 

The  grain  and  hay  samples  and  the  dried  silage  samples  were  kept 
until  analyzed  in  half -gallon  glass  fruit  jars  provided  with  rubber 
rings  and  tightly  fitting  glass  covers. 

The  methods  of  analysis  described  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Asso- 
ciation of  Official  Agricultural  Chemists  were  followed,  except  where 
otherwise  noted. 

RESULTS  OF  FEEDING  TRIAL 
MILK  AND  FAT  PRODUCTION 

In  Table  2  is  presented  a  summary  of  the  milk  and  butter-fat  pro- 
duction of  the  two  groups  of  cows  while  on  sunflower  silage  and  on 
corn  silage,  and  their  gains  or  losses  in  live  weight. 

One  of  the  most  striking  results  shown  in  this  comparison  is  the 
greater  production  of  the  groups  while  receiving  corn  silage  over  their 
production  on  the  sunflower  silage  ration,  the  increase  ranging  from 
15  to  25  percent  in  milk  yield,  10  to  13  percent  in  butter-fat  yield, 
and  12  to  16  percent  in  fat-corrected  milk  production." 

The  production  of  the  cows  when  fed  silage  made  from  the  first 
cutting  of  sunflowers  more  nearly  approached  their  production  when 
fed  corn  silage  than  when  they  were  fed  silage  made  from  either  the 
second  or  the  third  cutting  of  sunflowers.  While  the  degree  of  super- 
iority of  the  sunflower  silage  made  from  the  early  cut  plants  over 
that  from  the  late  cut  plants,  as  shown  in  this  manner,  was  not 
marked,  it  is  indicative  of  the  greater  nutritive  value  of  the  silage 
from  the  early  cut  plants. 

ECONOMY  OF  PRODUCTION 

The  relative  efficiency  of  the  sunflower  silage  and  the  corn  silage 
rations  was  studied  by  computing  the  digestible  nutrients  and  net 
energy  consumed,  above  the  requirement  for  maintenance,  per  unit  of 
production.  Comparisons  on  these  bases  are  given  in  Table  3. 

The  total  nutrients  consumed  were  determined  by  applying  the 
results  of  the  chemical  analyses  of  the  feed  samples  to  the  net  weights 
of  the  feed  consumed.  The  digestible  nutrients  of  the  feeds  consumed, 


•The  values  for  the  fat-corrected  milk  production  were  determined  accord- 
ing to  the  formula  of  Gaines  and  Davidson.18 


194 


BULLETIN  No.  253 


[July, 


CO 

§ 

o 
O 


n  live  weight 

Av.  per  cow 

co  N-  OS 

•O  (N 

~    1      1 

os 

i-H 
1 

> 

co  ?5 

CO  CO 

coco 
1    1 

co 

CO 

1 

CM  1C 

i-H 
1       1 

| 

00 

1 

b 

O 

a 
•3 
O 

a 

3 

"3 
w 

,88 

i-H 
1 

O  CO  CO 
00(N  O 
i-H  (N 

s 

77 

i-H 
CO 

1 

1C  CO 
i-KN 

1  7 

00 

CO 

1-H 

1 

1 

1 
5, 

o 

CO   1—  1   T—  1 

CO 
CO 

»c 

CD  O  !>• 

1s*  ^^  l-H 

CO(N  CD 

co 

i-H 

li 

1C  CO 

"3 

"3 
CO 
00 

COCN 

co  os 

o 

o 

1-H 

CD 
i-H 

to 
d 

HO 

.t^o 

<M 

i—  1  1C  CO 
COOS  1C 
iH  (N 

CO 

coco 

CO 

co 

CO 

CN  •* 

t>.co 

§ 

i-H 
1-H 

_o 
n 

1 

1^ 

?! 

O500  i-H 
l>00  rt< 

O5CN 

(N 

co 

eo  os 

0 

1-H 

1 

1 

.i-H  CO 
eo  1C  >C 

-0   T-H    CO 

CO  i-H 

! 

CO  1C  (M 

CO<N  "3 

(N 

CO  00 
1C  CO 

00 

i-H 

i-H  i-H 
U3CO 
OSO5 

(N 

i 

CN 

1 

1 

' 

j 

'5 
•J 

1 

1 

•S  fl 

tic  tic 

a  a 

^ 
i 

If 

0    0 

23  US 

"3  "3 
o  o 

k 

i 

C^C^ 

co  eo 

n 

n 

3  3 

3 
6 

3 

a  a  H 

0  0 

00 

. 

Sunflower, 
Sunflower, 

"rt 
1 

ss 

o  o 

oo 

"3 
"o 

H 

-I* 

Number 
of 

CO 

> 

8 

~ 

V 

8 

O500 

OS  00 

t 

C 

« 

i 

« 

« 

reduction 

r 

« 

reduction 

T: 
1 

-a 

«" 

n, 

1 

3fe 

fc3 

R, 
1 

CQ 
§ 


1924} 


THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A  SILAGE  CROP 


195 


£ 

> 

^ 

1 

8 

S 

s 

j3 

*H 

eo  i—f  O5        *O 

»C  OO        IO 

& 

A 

•O  i—  1  i—  1        i—  I 
"•*    i      i            I 

CM          ^H 

£ 

1      1            1 

++    + 

.g 

^ 

a 

o 

3 

(H 
O 

1 

^gS  J2    CN 

<M        CN 

00 
00 

fl 

•  b 

B  t'l      l 

-{--{-      _l_ 

'3 

^—  » 

O 

a 
W 

^ 

.COOO         ^H 

LOO        1C 

0 

73 

O 

oo  O5  <N        <N 

jg  CO  1C        OS 

CO  Tfl          i-H 

« 

'S 

*ij  ^7*        OS 

LQ  IO          ^~ 

^H 

9 

pcj 

^^ 

o, 

bO 

0 

*O  C^I       I^» 

(N  00       O 

vO 

*fl 

co  O>l  00       CO 

CO  i—  1        1C 

0s* 

3 

•O   J^  1—  |             Tj< 

CN<N        -^ 

o 

I—  1 

d 

•s 

o 

'-+3 

r^ 

"*-*  00  IO        00 

t^*  *-O          ^H 

3 

t^  ^f  CN       C^ 

(M  C35        ^( 

1 

|^^          TtJ 

a 

3 
1 

1 

.  eo  10      oo 

oo  CO  OO        i—  1 
C§  O  Tfi        »O 

•*  (N        CO 
Cd  CO       1C 

g 

S 

«OT*(        05 

U5  1C       O 
i—  i 

I—  1 

v 

I 

i 

j 

"a 

bb  bb 

*o 

ii 

-c 

"3  "3 

MM 

CJ    w 

« 

CQ  <n 

I-H  1—  1 

££  3 

3 

^  ^      o 

o 

o  o      £H 

ss  H 

3  3 

o  o 

§35 

O2O3 

OO 

-S 

S3 

S 

1h 

!l 

ooo 

ooo 

1—  1 

i 

C 

i 

_! 

2 

O 

«M 

«ff 

'•8 

1 

K 

R 

lj 

_ 

^ 

| 

'tH 

• 

*^ 

*^ 

§ 

E 

e 

.2 


'3  a 


o  5 


196  BULLETIN  No.  253  [July, 

except  the  sunflower  silage,  were  then  calculated  by  applying  the 
average  coefficients  of  digestibility  as  given  by  Henry  and  Morrison22 
to  the  total  nutrients  consumed.  The  coefficients  of  digestibility  of 
the  sunflower  silage  were  determined  by  conducting  a  digestion  trial 
in  which  the  sole  ration  was  sunflower  silage  from  the  same  lots  of 
silage  as  those  used  in  the  feeding  trial.  From  the  digestible  nutrients 
consumed  was  subtracted  an  estimate  of  the  nutrients  required  for 
maintenance  based  on  the  standard  established  by  Haecker.  The  net 
energy  values  were  calculated  by  the  use  of  values  given  by  Armsby 
and  Fries.5  From  these  were  subtracted  the  net  energy  required  for 
maintenance  as  estimated  from  Armsby 's  Standard.3  In  Tables  1  to  4 
of  the  Appendix  are  presented  the  total  and  digestible  nutrients  con- 
sumed and  the  analyses  of  the  feeds  employed,  together  with  the  coeffi- 
cients of  digestibility  and  net  energy  values  used  in  calculation. 

A  study  of  the  digestible  nutrients  consumed  per  hundred  pounds 
of  milk,  per  pound  of  butter  fat,  or  per  hundred  pounds  of  fat- 
corrected  milk,  above  that  required  for  maintenance,  shows  apparently 
no  very  wide  difference  in  efficiency  between  the  sunflower  silage  and 
corn  silage  rations  (Table  3).  In  all  cases  a  somewhat  smaller  amount 
of  nutrients  of  corn  silage  was  consumed  per  unit  of  production  than 
of  sunflower  silage.  This  apparent  similarity  in  efficiency  of  the  two 
rations,  however,  is  doubtless  largely  apparent  and  not  real,  since  in 
all  cases  the  losses  in  weight  were  greater  on  the  sunflower  silage  ra- 
tions (Table  2).  The  body  tissue  thus  lost  presumably  contributed 
some  nutrients  toward  the  production  of  milk.  It  may  be  noted,  also, 
that  with  the  exception  of  two  periods,  both  groups  of  cows  made  con- 
siderable gains  in  weight  while  being  fed  corn  silage.  A  part  of  the 
feed  consumed  must  have  been  used  for  the  body  increase,  thus  re- 
ducing the  apparent  efficiency  of  the  corn  silage  ration  as  shown  in 
milk  yield. 

When  a  comparison  of  the  sunflower  silage  and  corn  silage  rations 
is  made  upon  the  basis  of  net  energy  intake,  rather  than  upon  the  basis 
of  digestible  nutrients,  it  is  found  that  corrections  for  changes  in  live 
weight  are  necessary  in  order  to  account  for  the  utilization  of  the  net 
energy  in  the  two  rations  (Table  3,  column  8).  It  is  self-evident, 
however,  that  in  any  logical  method  of  comparing  the  efficiency  of 
different  rations  for  milk  production  there  must  be  taken  into  con- 
sideration the  gains  or  losses  in  live  weight  which  are  incurred. 

Corrections-  for  the  gains  and  losses  in  live  weight  were  made  by 
employing  Armsby 's4  requirements  for  fattening  in  the  early  stages 
with  no  considerable  growth,  this  requirement  being  2.5  therms  of 
net  energy  per  pound  of  increase  in  live  weight,  in  addition  to  the 
maintenance  requirement."  This  value  was  applied  to  the  number  of 


"Such  a  correction  factor  is  undoubtedly  of  value  in  cases  of  increase  in 
weight  due  to  fattening,  but  it  is  of  questionable  value  when  applied  to  losses  in 
weight  by  cows  in  ordinary  flesh. 


1984} 


THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A  SILAGE  CROP 


197 


P2 

H  O 


W 

g 
PQ 


§« 


g 


02  g 

go 

o 


I 

w 

tf 


O   oo 

K*8 

*  ^~*   ^ 

»  «'a 
-*  '-_- 

O   O  > 

f'*^        (NO        COrfi        O:  00        OCO        QOCO 
(N  "-H        CN  CO        IN  IN        CN  IN        IN  IN        CN  i-i 

•s; 

(N  1C 
CNCN 

c3   &  ^O 

o  il.S 

•S  c}  o 

u  M 

o  c^ 

**5  fl  *-" 

13  co 

ill 

si  j 

HI 

F  CO  CN        •*  CO        COT}*        OOCO        •*  IO        i-H  b- 
S  1-1  i-H        COCO                          (N  <N        i-H  r-t        COIN 

~£  j* 

o   ?Lrt 

"g 

£  a 

£.0-S 

• 

M 

> 

O    £H    O 

o 

i 

-*^    ^  T3 

oo  CO  OO        CO  ^f        t^-  CO        ^f  Oi        OO  C^        CO  1C 

^2  ^  "^      co  co      co  co      co  CN      co  "^      co  co 

0)    I 

0tSl 

'•^  S 

-1 

§1 

°.  fe 

ooOOCM       OOOS       O5O5       00t>-        OSi-H        O5O5 

43  G 

*^  -^ 

M  3 

-0 

la 

X! 

JJ'S 

'-13 

•M 

0) 

M 

Q 

i1 

GO  I-H  O        t^-  CO        CN  t^-        ^C  Oi        i™*  CO        00  *C 
[O  -^  1C        CO  CO        "^  CO        CO  CN        "^  "^        CO  CO 

| 

i 

c 

f 

*l 

i 

bio  bfi                       hi)  bC                       ^y 

•* 

i 

G  G                       G  G                      .".a          •     ' 

IS  ij                 *S  :£                 sS       «    . 

b 

^  ^                 "a  ^                  S  S       *    ' 
oo                      55                     oo-. 
~*  ^*                                                          •+*-** 

^3  ^J                                                                                 CO    CO 

CN  (N                          CO  CO                          I-H  i-H            •      • 

o  o                   o  o                  o  o        i    '. 

^—  ^G         G   C       ^  en         G   G       ^n  C£*         G   G 
GG        feS        GG        fe£        GG        gfe 

-o 

33         OO         GG         OO         £3G         OO 
COO2       OO       ODO2       OO       O1O5       OO 

'C 

J 

S 

ij 

CO  •<*        CO  rfl        O5OO        O500        O  OO        OCX) 
1—  (             1—  1 

a/  -2 

II 

j 

X 

r 
1 

<JPQ      <Jffl      <J«      ^ffl      ^,33      <ffi 

O    «J 

en  o 
G  t 

J 

'co  'co 

'o'o 

1 

J' 

&& 

•? 

t-^  ^j           ^  HH           HH  H^           t^"  h—  H           u>-  ^           ^  p>- 

|L|      ^H 

i 

i 

0 

4 

-<< 

198  BULLETIN  No.  253  [July, 

pounds  of  gain  or  loss  and  the  correction  made  by  adding  the  result 
to  the  net  energy  consumed  by  the  groups  suffering  a  loss  in  weight, 
and  by  deducting  the  result  from  the  net  energy  intake  of  the  groups 
gaining  in  weight.  After  making  such  corrections,  there  is  not  a  wide 
discrepancy  between  sunflower  silage  and  corn  silage  rations  in  the 
calculated  amounts  of  net  energy  for  milk  production,  as  may  be  noted 
from  the  last  column  of  Table  3.  However,  the  degree  of  variability 
between  the  groups  receiving  the  same  ration  is  so  wide  that  no  great 
importance  can  be  attached  to  this  particular  comparison.  It  seems 
likely  from  these  results  either  that  the  factor  used  for  the  net  energy 
value  of  the  sunflower  silage  underestimates  the  value  of  this  feed  for 
milk  production,  or  that  the  factor  used  in  the  calculation  of  the 
energy  value  of  the  losses  in  weight  are  too  small.1 

PALATABILITY 

Palatability  is  an  important  factor  in  determining  the  value  of  any 
feed,  in  that  consumption  so  largely  depends  on  it.  The  sunflower 
silage  used  had  a  slightly  bitter  taste  and  was  not  eaten  so  readily  as 
the  corn  silage.  Of  the  three  cuttings  of  sunflower  silage,  that  made 
from  the  first -cutting  was  the  most  palatable,  while  that  made  from 
the  third  cutting  was  decidedly  the  least  palatable,  as  may  be  judged 
from  the  consumption  shown  in  Table  4.  The  difference  in  consump- 
tion of  silage  of  the  first  cutting  and  of  the  second  was  slight.  The 
silage  from  the  third  cutting  seemed  very  distasteful,  possibly  because 
of  the  effects  of  rust  which  late  in  the  summer  had  attacked  the  plants 
severely,  and  also  perhaps  because  of .  the  presence  of  resins  which 
develop  as  the  plant  matures.  The  small  percentage  of  moisture 
present  and  the  woodiness  of  the  stalks  at  the  time  of  cutting  were 
undoubtedly  important  factors  contributing  to  the  unpalatability  of 
the  third  cutting.  This  silage  tended  to  spoil  more  quickly  than  that 
made  from  either  the  first  or  the  second  cutting.  The  consumption  of 
the  second  and  third  cuttings  of  sunflower  silage  decreased  slightly 
from  week  to  week  as  the  feeding  trial  progressed.  The  consumption 
of  the  first  cutting  of  sunflower  silage  and  of  the  corn  silage  was  prac- 
tically the  same  week  by  week. 

The  pronounced  difference  in  the  palatability  of  the  silages  of  the 
various  cuttings  caused  the  proportion  which  they  formed  of  the  total 
feed  intake  to  vary  widely  (Table  5).  The  percentages  were  approxi- 
mately 24,  18,  and  13  for  the  first,  second,  and  third  cuttings, 
respectively.  Corn  silage,  on  the  other  hand,  furnished  an  average 


1  The  discussion  of  the  results  of  the  feeding  trial  from  the  standpoint  of  net 
energy  has  been  included  as  a  matter  of  interest,  altho  the  deductions  made  from 
the  results  so  calculated  should  not  be  unduly  emphasized.  The  method  of 
calculation  as  applied  to  sunflower  silage  is  subject  to  revision  on  account  of 
comparatively  low  digestibility  of  the  total  dry  matter  of  sunflower  silage  as 
compared  with  the  feeds  used  in  the  original  experiments  by  Armsby  and  Fries. 


THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A  SILAGE  CROP 


199 


of  about  40  percent  of  the  total  digestible  nutrients  of  the  ration. 
Considered  on  the  basis  of  net  energy,  the  sunflower  silage  contributed 
an  even  smaller  proportion  of  the  total  net  energy  intake.  As  pointed 
out  above,  this  may  have  been  due  to  some  extent  to  the  underrating 
of  the  net  energy  content  of  the  sunflower  silage. 

TABLE  4. — DAILY  CONSUMPTION  OP  SILAGE 


Period 

Group 

Number 
of 

Kind  of  siliisc 

Average  s 
sumed  ] 

ilage  con- 
aer  cow 

cows 

Fresh 
weight 

Dry 

matter 

I 
II 

A 
B 

6 
4 

Sunflower,  2d  cutting  
Sunflower,  2d  cutting  

Ibs. 
27.3 
22  8 

.  Ibs. 
6.2 
5.2 

II 

A 

6 

Corn  

30  9 

10  0 

I 

B 

4 

Corn  

31.2 

9.6 

111 
IV 

A 
B 

9 
8 

Sunflower,  3d  cutting  
Sunflower,  3d  cutting  

12.3 
10.2 

3.8 
3.2 

IV 

A 

9 

Corn  

29.7 

9.2 

III 

B 

8 

Corn  .  .          

29  7 

9  2 

V 

A 

10 

Sunflower,  1st  cutting  

28.4 

6.0 

VI 

B 

8 

Sunflower,  1st  cutting  

27.3 

5.8 

VI 

A 

10 

Corn  

31.3 

9.7 

V 

B 

8 

Corn  

32.2 

9.9 

PHYSIOLOGICAL  EFFECTS 

All  group  totals  for  loss  or  gain  in  live  weight  show  a  loss  with  the 
sunflower  silage  ration,  altho  a  few  individual  cows  gained  in  weight 
during  some  of  these  periods.  The  totals  for  the  groups  fed  corn 
silage  show  losses  in  two  instances,  but  most  of  the  period  totals  show 
substantial  gains.  As  with  sunflower  silage,  there  were  individual 
exceptions  to  the  group  gains  or  losses.  The  gains  and  losses  in  live 
weight  by  groups  and  periods  are  reported  in  Table  2. 

The  sunflower  silage  proved  to  be  less  laxative  than  the  corn  silage. 
This  was  particularly  noticeable  in  the  digestion  trial,  in  which  sun- 
flower silage  composed  the  entire  ration.  Under  these  conditions  the 
sunflower  silage  seemed  to  exert  a  constipating  effect,  the  dry-matter 
content  of  the  feces  ranging  from  approximately  24  to  29  percent, 
while  at  the  same  time  a  cow  on  a  mixed  ration  containing  corn  silage 
produced  feces  having  a  dry-matter  content  ranging  from  16.9  to 
17.4  percent. 

The  average  dry-matter  content  of  the  feces  of  steers  while  re- 
ceiving a  ration  of  ground  corn  and  clover  hay  is  reported  by 
Grindley  et  al.20  to  have  ranged  from  14.59  percent  to  19.13  percent, 


200  BULLETIN  No.  253  [July, 

and  while  receiving  a  ration  of  ground  corn,  linseed  meal,  and  clover 
hay  to  have  ranged  from  17.61  percent  to  19.06  percent. 

Several  reports  have  appeared  in  experiment  station  literature  and 
in  the  popular  press  to  the  effect  that  the  feeding  of  sunflower  silage 
causes  an  excessive  excretion  of  urine.  In  the  experiments  reported 
in  this  bulletin  no  such  effect  was  noted.  On  the  contrary,  during  the 
course  of  the  digestion  trial,  in  which  sunflower  silage  was  fed  ex- 
clusively, there  was  even  less  urine  excreted  than  was  the  case  on  a 
mixed  ration  (see  Appendix,  Table  5). 

The  condition  of  the  hair  and  the  general  appearance  of  the  animals 
was  not  quite  so  good  during  the  sunflower  silage  periods  as  during 
the  corn  silage  periods. 

No  digestive  disturbances  were  noted  during  the  course  of  the 
feeding  trial.  It  was  necessary,  however,  to  drop  a  fifteen-year  old 
cow  from  the  experiment  on  account  of  her  persistent  refusal  to  eat 
the  sunflower  silage. 

GENERAL  DISCUSSION 

When  the  cows  were  fed  sunflower  silage  from  the  first  cutting, 
their  yield  of  milk  and  butter  fat  more  nearly  approached  the  yield 
with  corn  silage  than  it  did  when  they  were  fed  sunflower  silage  of 
either  the  second  or  the  third  cutting.  From  this  it  may  be  inferred 
that  the  silage  produced  from  the  first  cutting  of  sunflowers  was 
superior  in  feeding  value  to  that  produced  from  the  other  two  cuttings. 
Inquiry  into  the  causes  of  these  apparently  better  results  from  the 
first  cutting  brings  to  light  the  facts  that  a  larger  amount  of  this 
silage  was  consumed  daily  (Table  4)  than  was  consumed  of  the  second 
or  the  third  cutting,  and  that  at  the  same  time  it  contained  a  larger 
amount  of  total  digestible  nutrients  per  pound  (Table  11).  A  com- 
parison of  the  requirements  for  milk  production  as  expressed  in  the 
Haecker  standard21  with  the  amount  of  nutrients  supplied  by  the 
sunflower  silage  and  the  corn  silage  rations  shows  clearly  that  the 
sunflower  silage  rations  were  theoretically  insufficient  to  maintain  the 
normal  level  of  milk  production  (Table  6).  The  experimental  data 
show  that  the  greater  the  difference  between  the  actual  consumption 
and  the  theoretical  requirement,  the  more  rapid  the  decrease  in 
milk  yield. 

From  a  practical  standpoint,  palatability  proved  the  most  decisive 
factor  in  determining  the  value  of  the  silages  from  the  different  cut- 
tings. Whether  this  would  hold  true  under  different  climatic  and 
seasonal  conditions  was  not  determined.  Under  the  existing  condi- 
tions it  seemed  evident  that  had  the  consumption  of  the  sunflower 
silage  been  sufficiently  large,  the  production  of  the  cows  would  have 
been  nearly  or  fully  as  great  as  when  corn  silage  was  fed.  The  basis 


1924] 


THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A  SILAGE  CROP 


201 


for  this  assumption  is  that  a  few  cows  consumed  almost  as  much  of 
the  first-  and  the  second-cutting  silage  as  they  consumed  of  corn  silage 
and  produced  nearly  as  well  as  when  fed  corn  silage.  It  is  reasonable 
to  assume,  therefore,  that  had  the  sunflower  silage  been  more  palatable, 
the  cows  might  have  eaten  a  sufficient  amount  to  provide  enough 
digestible  nutrients  to  maintain  a  normal,  or  nearly  normal,  milk  yield. 
Doubtless  much  of  the  loss  in  live  weight  occasioned  by  the  sun- 
flower1 silage  feeding  could  have  been  prevented  by  liberal  grain  feed- 

TABLE  5. — PROPORTION  OF  THE  TOTAL  FEED  CONSUMED  FURNISHED  BY  SILAGE 


Period 

Group 

Kind  of  silage 

Proportion  of  total  feed  in- 
take furnished  by  silage 

Total 
digestible 
nutrients 

Net  energy 

I 
II 

II 
I 

III 
IV 

IV 
III 

V 
VI 

VI 
V 

A 
B 

A 
B 

A 
B 

A 
B 

A 
B 

A 
B 

Sunflower,  2d  cutting  :  

perct. 
16.9 
18.8 

42.3 
40.7 

13.8 
12.9 

43.2 
37.9 

24.6 
23.9 

44.3 

40.8 

perct. 
1.4 
2.5 

40.2 
38.3 

1.5 
3.9 

40.6 
36.5 

15.3 

14.5 

42.1 
41.3 

Sunflower,  2d  cutting  

Corn      

Corn        

Sunflower,  3d  cutting        

Sunflower,  3d  cutting 

Corn  

Corn  

Sunflower,  1st  cutting       

Sunflower,  1st  cutting         .  .  . 

Corn        

Corn  

ing.  In  that  event,  however,  the  sunflower  silage  would  have  formed 
but  a  minor  part  of  the  ration  and  any  important  physiological  effects 
or  influences  on  production  might  have  failed  to  materialize.  Since 
it  was  the  object  of  the  investigation  to  study  such  effects  or  in- 
fluences, it  was  thought  advisable  to  carry  out  the  experiment  as 
planned  and  to  feed  the  grain  in  proportion  to  the  milk  yield.  It 
would  have  been  much  more  satisfactory  to  have  eliminated  the 
variable  factor  of  gain  or  loss  in  weight  by  feeding  both  groups  so  that 
the  gains  or  losses  would  have  been  uniform  than  to  make  corrections 
for  these  gains  or  losses,  since  such  corrections  can,  at  best,  be  but 
approximations. 

The  lack  of  condition  in  the  hair  and  the  change  in  appearance  of 
the  cows  while  being  fed  sunflower  silage  may  have  been  caused  by  the 
lack  of  sufficient  digestible  matter  to  maintain  their  live  weight  and 
possibly  by  the  effect  upon  the  system  of  compounds  contained  in  the 
silage,  altho  evidence  of  the  latter  was  not  established. 


202 


BULLETIN  No.  253 


TABLE  6. — COMPARISON  OF  NUTRIENT  INTAKE  WITH  REQUIREMENTS 
OP  HAECKER'S  STANDARD 


Period 

Group 

Number 
of 
cows 

Week 
ending 

Ration 

Av.  milk 
daily  per 
cow 

Av.  live 
wt.  per 

cow 

III 
IV 

A 
A 

9 
9 

12-23-21 
1-27-22 

Sunflower  silage  .... 
Corn  silage  

Ibs. 
18.6 
20.7 

Ibs. 
975.7 
937.1 

COMPARISON  OF  SUNFLOWER  SILAGE  RATION  WITH  STANDARD  REQUIREMENTS 


Digestible  Nutrients  Required  Daily — Period  III 

Carbo- 
hydrates 


Crude 

protein 

Ibs. 

0.682 

For  18.6  Ibs.  of  4. 8  percent  milk 1 . 130 


For  maintenance  of  a  975.7  Ib.  cow. 


Total 

(Nutritive  ratio  1 :7) 


1.812 


6.83 
5.02 

11.85 


Digestible  Nutrients  Consumed  Daily — Period  III 

Crude          Carbo- 
protein        hydrates 


13.6  Ibs.  sunflower  silage. 

6 . 4  Ibs.  grain 

9.0  Ibs.  hay 


Ibs. 
.055 
.813 
.937 

1.805 


Ibs. 
1.218 
3.233 
3.500 

7.951 


Fat 
Ibs. 
.0975 
.4660 

.5635 


Fat 

Ibs. 
.131 
.183 
.077 

.391 


Total 

(Nutritive  ratio  1 :4 . 6) 

Variation  from  requirements -0.007       —3.90       —0. 1725 


COMPARISON  OF  CORN  SILAGE  RATION  WITH  STANDARD  REQUIREMENTS 


Digestible  Nutrients  Required  Daily — Period  IV 


Crude 

protein 

Ibs. 

For  maintenance  of  a  937. 1  Ib.  cow 656 

For  20.7  Ibs.  of  4.7  percent  milk 1.221 


Carbo- 
hydrates 
Ibs. 
6.559 
5.589 


Total 

(Nutritive  ratio  1 :7) 


1.877        12.148 


Digestible  Nutrients  Consumed  Daily — Period  IV 


Fat 
Ibs. 
.0937 
.4968 

.5905 


30  .  4  Ibs.  corn  silage  

Crude 
protein 
Ibs. 
460 

Carbo- 
hydrates 
Ibs. 
5.529 

Fat 
Ibs. 
.292 

6  .  0  Ibs.  grain  

764 

3.051 

.237 

8.7  Ibs.  hav  

973 

3.373 

.087 

Total  

2  197 

11.953 

.616 

(Nutritive  ratio  1  :6) 
Variation  from  requirements  

+0.320 

-0.195 

+0.025 

1924]  THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A  SILAGE  CROP  203 

COMPOSITION  OF  SUNFLOWER  SILAGE 

Large  composite  samples  of  sunflower  silage  and  of  corn  silage 
were  taken  as  the  finely  cut  material  was  placed  in  the  silo.  At  the 
close  of  the  working  day  or  at  the  time  the  filling  was  stopped,  the 
sample  was  subsampled  and  the  subsample  dried.  Other  composite 
samples  were  taken  during  the  course  of  the  feeding  and  digestion 
trials,  as  described  on  page  192.  Average  analyses  of  these  samples, 
calculated  on  the  fresh  basis,  are  presented  in  Table  7 ;  the  individual 
analyses,  calculated  on  the  water-free  basis,  are  given  in  Tables  8  and  9. 

COMPOSITION  OF  FRESH  MATTER 

The  sunflower  plants  ensiled  at  the  more  advanced  stages  of  ma- 
turity produced  silage  higher  in  every  constituent,  other  than  water, 
than  was  the  silage  from  the  comparatively  immature  first  cutting.  It 
was  considerably  higher  in  dry  matter,  crude  fiber,  and  ether  extract. 
The  variation  in  the  amounts  of  some  of  these  constituents  is  evidently 
not  due  simply  to  differences  in  the  water  content  of  the  silages,  but  is 
doubtless  a  result  of  physiological  changes  in  the  plant.  For  example, 
the  increase  in  dry  matter  of  the  third  cutting  over  that  of  the  first 
was  46  percent,  while  the  crude  fiber  increased  77  percent  and  the 
ether  extract  90  percent. 

Sunflower  silage  has  a  higher  moisture  content  than  has  corn 
silage.  Even  the  silage  from  the  third  cutting  of  sunflowers  had  a 
slightly  higher  content  than  the  corn  silage  fed,  yet  it  evidently  was 
too  low  in  water  content,  or  in  sugar  and  starch  content,  to  allow  the 
normal  fermentation  processes  to  take  place.  As  a  result,  this  silage 
did  not  keep  well,  as  noted  above,  while  the  corn  silage  was  of  excel- 
lent quality.  This  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  if  sunflowers  are  to 
produce  a  good  grade  of  silage  they  must  have  a  higher  moisture  con- 
tent at  the  time  of  ensiling  than  corn. 

The  crude-protein  content  of  sunflower  silage  of  all  three  cuttings 
was  found  to  be  less  than  that  of  well-matured  corn  silage  but  was 
about  the  same  as  that  of  immature  corn  silage.  The  true,  or 
albuminoid,  protein  forms  a  larger  proportion  of  the  crude  protein  in 
sunflower  silage  than  in  corn  silage,  in  the  first,  second,  and  third 
cuttings  forming  68,  76,  and  82  percent,  respectively,  of  the  crude- 
protein  content,  while  in  corn  silage  it  formed  only  53  percent.  It  is 
likely  that  the  differences  in  true-protein  content  of  the  silage  made 
from  sunflowers  at  the  different  stages  of  growth  were  due  to  a  trans- 
formation of  the  soluble  nitrogen  compounds  into  protein  as  the  plants 
approached  maturity. 

COMPOSITION  OF  DRY  MATTER 

When  the  analyses  of  the  different  silages  used  in  these  experiments 
are  expressed  in  terms  of  the  percentage  composition  of  dry  matter 


204 


BULLETIN  No.  253 


[July, 


- 

OO  CO  iCi-H  O  O 
I-H  <N  00  O  rfi  t~- 

" 

(N  <N  <N  IN  I-H  1-1 

si 

i—  i  CO  •«*!  1C  O  O 
00  i-H  1C  O5  CD  00 

W   a; 

O»Hi-HOOO 

II 

(N  CO  I-H  CDOO 

l>  1C  O  Tf<  CO  Tt< 

SI 

00  00  I-H  O5  I-H  1C 

I-H  I-H  l-H  I-H 

"f  S3 

CD  1C  t-H  TJ<  OO 
1C  i-H  Tt<  O  00  CO 

t^.  O5  00  l>  1C  CD 

l-H 

srl 

(NCNt^Ic      •      • 

*t 

l-H  I-H  l-H  l-H 

"2*1 

OOCOO5  »COO 
OO  CD  O  OO  O5  1-1 

at 

l-H  I-H  (N  <N  l-H  <N 

hi 

•^OOOOO 
i-HI>O5CO  O  CO 

Q| 

i-H  (N  O  (N  i-H  CO 
<N<NCOCO<N<N 

"3, 

§ 

ci 

CO 

I 

111 

""    CO    OO 

10  Tf  (N 

O'O'Q 

B           8 

._S_g-g'a1    j/ 

<u~  <v~  <o  ^.  S  S 
bC  bC  bC  g  g   « 

'53'co'co  oT  aT  oT 

"c*^  6  6  S 

33^000 
O2O2CCOOO 

-I 

I 

!-! 

^ 

I 


^ 
g 

B 


gfe< 


O   O 
^S 

•s-g 

«  ci 


o  C 
i>  v 

^W 


THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A  SILAGE  CROP 


205 


CO 

l| 

"^'aT 

ll 

i   -^> 

^l"t-^ 

!z  X 

-S  " 

f-t   aj 

•M  a 

|| 

O--i 

r*^  ^ 

§  ** 

*GO    (H 

.9 

3  ^ 

g  y> 

H  2 

$~ 

& 

w 

-S-i 

S  "o 

u  B. 

P| 

.S 

- 

"S 

b^  ^-o  §  "^ 

o 

Q  "§  •*"   ^   oj   fe 

CO 

S.g  x  »a 

t4 

O 

O     £)^ 

•ti 

CO  *S 

p 

rt 
CO 

ID 

S 

P 

§    SS£8£ 

00  OJ        IO  CO  CO  't1 
t^  CO        O  OSOO  -* 

S    88 

(N       OOSOi-H  OS 

1—  1              t—  1             T—  1  I—  1 

i-H  OS         O  OS  OS  OS 
1-H                   1-H 

OS        OS  OS 

l"*w         t-H  i-H  ^1  OS  OS 

CO        OS  OO  00  OS  ^ 

C^  I-H       O  O  OS  OS 

»o      co  oo 

OO       OS  OS 

(N        CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 

IN*       .OiOTh^ 

CO        «^ 

CO        (N  i-H  t--  IO  CO 

OOOS        Tt«'*  OOCO 
IO  OO        IO  OS-*  OO 

t>-       COlO 

OS        Oi-H  <N  T-H  O 

i-H  CO        CO  IO  OS  00 
rt<  -^        CO  CO  COCO 

CO       CO  CO 

t^-       »O  O  I-H  O  CO 
(N        COCOI>CO  CO 

IO  CO        ^  CO  i—  1  CO 
•*  00       (NOO  I-H  OS 

CM       OOOS 

CO       l>-b-CO^  CO 
IN        COCO  CO  CO  CO 

»o  M*      I-H  I-H  oo  os 

CO  CO        Tji  Tfi  CO  CO 

21     T*<N 

«O  OS     •     •     • 
OOO5     •     •     • 

IO  IO      •      • 

•          CO^H 

Oi-i 

CO        <N  1>CD  CO  O 
IO        CO  OS  I-H  (N  1> 

00  >O        O  IO  CO  IN 

OS  "^          i-H  i-H  CO  OO 

CO        t^  CO 
O       COOO 

OS        OO  t^  OS  OS  OS 

00  t^»        t^*  t**  t""-  CO 

00       COCO 

SOOOOO 
OO  O  O  O 

bC 

§O       O  O  O  O 
O       O  O  O  O 

bC 

O       OO 
O       OO 

'3 

+3 

b-          i-H  COTf  COJ> 

O 

^*  00        ^1^  ^*  ^^  OS 
I>O        COCO  CO  00 

3 

O 

(N       1><N 

C^         i-H  CO 

•*          O<NrH  OO 

i-H        (N  <N<N  (N(N 

f 

§ 

COO        <N  (N  (NIN 
i-H  (N        IN  (N  IN  IN 

(H 

H 

r-t          O  l-H 

CO        CO  CO 

As  ensiled  in  Silo  8  ... 

As  removed  from  Silo  8 
it  it  tt  it  it 

n  u  ii  ii  ii 
u  it  ii  u  tt 
u  it  a  u  u 

As  ensiled  in  Silo  71  .  .  . 

it  It  It  ll  111 

As  removed  from  Silo  7 

u  a  a  ii  it 

it  it  it  u  it 

ll  ll  ll  It  ll 

As  ensiled  in  Silo  9  ... 

As  removed  from  Silo  9 

u  it  ti  a  a 

IO        t^*  i—  i  OS  O  CO 

I-H  IN  CO  t>  00 

T-H  1-H           O  O  t^b- 

IO          i-H  Tfl 
(N         i-Hi-H 

<N  (N 

O^J  C^ 

^H  <M  05  O5  (N 
(N         b   &    ~    -05 

"~l        S"?  rH  ^      ~ 

i—  i  i-H 

^ToTos  os 

1-H  1-H                           1-H  I-H 

coco     O^i^S 

O  O3 

co""o 

i-H  i-H 

c*      aji 

OS         03   <U 
C^        ^  d 

J-t     ~  -~  ~ 

iS 

CO 


II 


SI 


Is 


206 


BULLETIN  No.  253 


[July, 


3 

ooeoocoos 

OOCOOl-H  !-H 

ts*  l"H  Oi  t^*  ^* 

O       1-1 
O       IN 

«q 

>C  1C  CO  CO  CO 

1C  CO  »C  >C  CO 

CD        l> 

ktg 

ll 

rH  COOOOO 

Sg^gFt 

00        O5 
CO        00 

L       * 

IN  (N<NC<1<N 

<N  IN  CONN 

IN       (N 

S~         a,* 

rf     0}             fli     T5 

&  ^    J2  S 

<N—l(NO5O 

COOOINOOO 
00  CO  IN  00  <N 

t*       (N 

CO       t^ 

»  _g      jT-fl 

^C  CD  CD  ^C  CO 

O^  ^^  O  »^  O5 
>C  CO  CO  CO  1C 

i-H         OS 
CO        »C 

II  -si 

N  Oi  IN  CO  CO 
1C«5CO  •<*!  1C 

O5  r-l  OOOO^H 

(N        •* 

00       »C 

O'rt       ^(C 

8j| 

•  I-H  1-1  IN  IN  O 
W  IN  C^l  <N  C<l 

(N  "H  OOCO 
(N  IN  IN  (N  IN 

O        1-1 
IN        (N 

,  '• 

§  C       e>3 

._  ^  -^         _    ^.^ 

*&    S| 

•^  O5  O5  O>  N 

»c 

«C  rt<COCO-* 

1C 

o 

II 

OO^HOOOOO 

(NICOOOO5 
COON  CO  CO 

O         l-H 
00         CO 

OOO5O50000 

OOOSOOOOO 

00       00 

bl 
fil 

88888 

So  o  o  o 
o  o  o  o 

8    8 

°a 

*""o5        w 

Is*  CO  f^  »™l  i"H 

t^  CO  CD  COCO 

•-!•*  (NCOOO 

O       00 
CO         CO 

Q   s3«£  3  o3  6 

O  t-H  t^.  1C  r-t 
COCO  N  CO  CO 

CO  N  CO  CO  CO 

IN        (N 

CO        CO 

»c 

CO 

J2 

;     jo 

g   0 

o     ^  ,. 

CQ2    222 

®       OQ 

—    s 

u 

OQ 

2 

02        g 
16 

O    M 

B*H 

o  ® 

i 

1 

.3    „ 
1     I 

a 
a> 

a-  -  -  - 

s  i 

OQ           tc 

<J  "    "    "    - 

•<J  ••    -    ••    - 

<     <3 

0) 
1°' 

IN  CO-*  1C  CO 

§OCOOO(N 

^    s 

02 

:<N  :  :  : 

:2|   :  : 

'  CO  rH  ^  ^ 

XT  ^^       "O^  O^ 

—        *   —    *~~   "~~ 

—  ^^ 

s 

^       .  [  ^   .  —  | 

-»C*^^  r^    ^H   O1! 

I—  1 

M 

W^     |      {^3 

_^        (N 

M 

(N  <N  (N  (N  (N 

?^fljj* 

S    2 

O 

"  ""^  J*    1      [ 

1-1      eo 

»c  co  t^  o  01 

IN'H?5'-|(N 

o~     ^ 

«        00 

be  bC  bC  bO  bO 

31411 

bC      jj 
3        o 

<s    o 

THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A  SILAGE  CROP  207 

(see  Tables  8  and  9),  comparison  of  the  composition  is  facilitated. 
The  data  show  that  both  the  crude-protein  content  and  the  nitrogen- 
free-extract  content  of  the  sunflower  plants  decreased  as  the  plants 
matured.  These  results  are  in  accord  with  those  of  Shaw  and 
Wright,40  who  found  that  both  the  total  protein  and  the  albuminoid 
protein,  and  both  the  reducing  and  the  non-reducing  sugars,  formed 
decreasing  percentages  of  the  dry  matter  as  sunflower  plants  advanced 
in  maturity,  These  investigators  also  reported  decreased  starch  con- 
tents as  the  seeds  ripened.  They  found  that  while  the  corn  plant,  like 
the  sunflower,  showed  with  maturity  lowered  percentages  of  both 
crude  and  albuminoid  protein  and  reducing  sugars,  there  was,  unlike 
the  case  with  the  sunflower  plant,  a  rapid  storage  of  starch  as  the  corn 
plants  approached  maturity. 

The  ensiling  process  apparently  caused  a  small  loss  or  transforma- 
tion of  crude  protein  and  nitrogen-free  extract  in  the  sunflower  silage. 
The  apparent  loss  of  nitrogen-free  extract,  however,  was  not  neces- 
sarily a  loss  of  material  from  the  silo,  but  may  have  been  a  conversion 
of  the  sugars  and  readily  fermentable  carbohydrates  into  organic  acids 
thru  the  fermentation  processes.  The  simultaneous  development  of 
acid  (Table  10)  and  the  disappearance  of  a  part  of  the  nitrogen-free 
extract  leads  to  the  belief  that  the  sugars  are  converted  into  organic 
acid. 

Some  nitrogenous  compounds  and  ash  were  lost  by  seepage  of 
juices  from  the  silo.  These  juices  were  rich  in  solids,  the  juice  from 
the  first  cutting  containing  4.07  percent  total  solids,  while  that  from 
the  second  cutting  contained  5.71  percent.  The  ash  content  of  the 
juices  was  93  percent  and  1.56  percent,  respectively,  and  the  crude- 
protein  content  .31  percent  and  .54  percent. 

The  increase  in  ether-extract  content  may  have  been  due  to  the 
development  of  new  ether  soluble  compounds  as  a  result  of  the  fer- 
mentation processes.  Since  the  organic  acids  usually  present  in  silage 
— namely,  lactic,  acetic,  and  propionic — are  soluble  in  ether,  it  seems 
likely  that  the  presence  of  the  organic  acids  explains  the  increase  in 
the  amount  of  ether  extract.  Determinations  of  the  total  acidity  of 
fresh  sunflower  silage  were  made  and  the  results  were  calculated  in 
terms  of  lactic  acid  in  the  fresh  silage  and  in  the  dry  matter  of  the 
silage.  These  calculations  are  shown  in  Table  10. 

The  percentage  of  crude  fiber  in  the  sunflower  plants  of  the  three 
cuttings  was  found  to  be  very  different,  being  distinctly  greater  with 
the  more  mature  plants.  This  same  difference  held  true  of  the  silage 
made  from  the  three  cuttings.  The  content  in  the  silage  was  found 
to  be  greatly  increased  over  that  of  the  plants  as  ensiled,  an  increase 
for  which  the  change  in  percentage  of  the  other  constituents  seems 
barely  sufficient  to  account. 


208 


BULLETIN  No.  253 


[July, 


TABLE  10. — TOTAL  ACIDITY  OF  SUNFLOWER  SILAGE  CALCULATED  AS  LACTIC  ACID 


Description  of  sample 

Date 

Lactic  acid  per  100 
grams  of  — 

Fresh 
silage 

Dry  matter 
in  silage1 

First  cutting,  Silo  8  

2-25-22 
11-23-21 
1-  4-22 
1-10-22 

grams 
1.490 
0.920 
1.453 
1.380 

grams 
7.05 
4.05 
4.70 
4.47 

Second  cutting,  Silo  7  

Third  cutting,  Silo  9  

Third  cutting,  Silo  9  

average  dry  matter  content  given  in  Table  7. 

Corn  silage,  in  contrast  to  sunflower  silage,  shows  practically  no 
change  in  composition  from  the  time  of  being  ensiled  until  fed,  with 
the  exception  of  the  ether-extract  content.  On  the  water-free  basis 
the  ether-extract  content  of  the  corn  silage  of  Silo  No.  5  increased 
more  than  16  percent  after  filling,  judging  from  the  average  of  five 
samples  taken  from  the  material  as  ensiled,  and  from  the  four  best 
agreeing  samples  of  the  silage  as  removed  for  feeding. 

The  crude-protein  content  of  corn  silage  is  practically  the  same  as 
that  of  sunflower  silage  when  compared  on  the  basis  of  dry  matter,  the 
percentage  in  the  corn  being  slightly  higher  than  that  in  the  sun- 
flower silage  made  from  the  more  mature  plants.  The  content  of 
nitrogen-free  extract  is  much  higher,  as  would  be  expected.  The 
crude-fiber  content  of  corn  silage  is  approximately  one-half  that  in 
silage  made  from  mature  sunflowers.  It  may  be  noted  further  that  the 
crude-fiber  content  of  the  first,  second,  and  third  cuttings  of  sunflower 
silage  was  approximately  36  percent,  40  percent,  and  43  percent,  re- 
spectively, computed  on  the  water-free  basis,  as  compared  with  about 
22  percent  in  corn  silage.  It  seems  probable  that  the  superiority  of 
one  kind  of  silage  over  another  may  be  due  in  large  part  to  the  dif- 
ference in  crude-fiber  content.  In  the  feeding  trial,  a  somewhat  direct 
relation  was  found  between  palatability  and  crude-fiber  content,  the 
relation  being  an  inverse  ratio. 

The  ether-extract  and  ash  contents  of  corn  silage  are  much  less 
than  those  of  sunflower  silage. 

It  was  somewhat  surprising  to  find  that  the  silage  produced  from 
the  first-harvested  sunflowers  contained  a  larger  proportion  of  di- 
gestible nutrients  per  pound  than  the  silage  from  the  second  and  third 
cuttings.  This  conclusion  was  arrived  at  by  applying  the  coefficients 
of  digestibility  obtained  in  the  digestion  trial  to  the  average  analyses 
of  the  silage  as  removed  for  feeding.  The  results  of  these  computa- 
tions are  shown  in  Table  11.  These  data  would  indicate  that  the  third- 
cutting  silage  was  higher  in  digestible  nutrients  than  the  second- 
cutting.  However,  since  the  digestion  coefficients  found  for  the 
second-cutting  silage  were  applied  to  the  third-cutting  silage  as  well 


1924] 


THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A  SILAGE  CROP 


209 


• 

U^    uj 

3l 

OO  •*  l>  O  OO 

(M  CD  t^  CO  CO 

0)^ 
^"o3 

0    IB 

O  OOOSCO  t^ 

5C 

I—  <                    I—I  T-H 

Jo 

3^ 

53  1 

O  0*3  O  O  O 
lOb-  O  Tf  I> 

.Sg 

^  -is 

O  O  1-1  O  O 

S  o 

H  x 

^3  *a^ 

^    05 

o  ^ 

•s^ 

G73 

(NOOOOOO 

«"d 

03   O 

1C  CO  i—  I  ^  O 

03   03 

O   It 

00  CD  l^  ^H  1C 

2  aT 

f"H  I-H 

^        ^ 

-^J2 

»H  "3 

^to 

11 

CO  CCi-H      •      • 

00-*  TjH       •       • 

If 

**?  -J3 

Tt*  co  c<i    •    • 

«2| 

>•   X 

I 

<-l     QJ 

1   =3 

1 

•§  J 

1 

3 

•S  ^ 

°c^t^    '•    • 

§J* 

2  -° 

00  CO  •*      •      • 

o  ^ 

G  •« 

'     02 

0   ° 

1  £ 

'•*3  bC 

:  G> 

T3 

05.  S 

<         (-4 

05          G 

t*»  i^  O5       • 

SPS 

1 

o  "C°a5 

^H  O(N      •      • 

73  3 

s"8 

05    3  -*-* 
P-i   ^   O 

T—  1    1—  1   1—  1 

S-o 

*        hfi 

Q     CJ     Q 

f—  1   ^ 

MJ 

;     03 

0 

3 

4     *= 

-»J 

i     fl 

•     -. 

2     ® 

T^      OS 

H     0 

'     fc 
3      05 

•S-- 

COlM  rt<  O  O 

CD  CO  CO  O  fH 

-^ 

3   a 

^  "o 

OC5Oi-Hi-H 

'oi  ^ 

H   « 

Oc 

pH  ^3 

2    "~ 

a 

x  ^T 

i  1 
^ 

h 

CD  t^  C<1  O  O 

i>oo  r>  o  co 

II 

H        X 

A  ~l") 

oi  1>  O  i-i  co 

«•*' 

i) 

S 

^H  (M  <N 

oT 

I 

c  3 

03   03 

i 

t^   O 

4 

E 

H 

s 

gf 

i 

^^ 

4 

G 

4 

'^   bb 

B 

-^.S 

"8 

III  % 

1-S 

*d 

•  t^   .^H 

0 

«lll^ 

-O-*3 

<D    C^    Q^    £    S 

o    ^  ' 

F^    "^  r 

•    K    K    S    I 

s3  _- 

o  o  o"l 

O  03 

1-1    *^ 

G  G  fl  fc  t 
3  3   3  O  C 

a 

03 

-S      . 


210 


BULLETIN  No.  253 


[July, 


as  to  the  second,1  it  is  probable  that  some  advantage  was  given  to  the 
silage  from  the  most  mature  plants  and  that  actually  the  content  of 
total  digestible  nutrients  of  the  third-cutting  silage  was  less  than  that 
of  the  second  cutting. 

Corn  silage  from  immature  corn  has  a  slightly  higher  content  of 
total  digestible  nutrients  than  sunflower  silage  from  any  of  the  cut- 
tings, while  corn  silage  from  well-matured  corn  has  a  still  higher 
content  of  total  digestible  nutrients. 

ACRE  YIELD  OF  DIGESTIBLE  NUTRIENTS 

The  digestible  nutrients  yielded  per  acre  by  sunflowers  were  cal- 
culated by  applying  to  the  data  secured  in  a  study  of  the  composition 
of  the  growing  crop  the  coefficients  of  digestibility  secured  in  the  di- 
gestion trial.  The  samples  from  the  field  investigation  were  taken 
upon  dates  nearly  coincident  with  the  dates  of  ensiling  the  sunflowers 
used  in  the  feeding  trial.  The  values  thus  obtained  are  shown,  in 
Table  12. 

TABLE  12. — YIELD  OF  DIGESTIBLE  NUTRIENTS  OP  SUNFLOWERS  PER  ACRE 
Expressed  in  pounds 


Date  of 
harvest 

Dry 

matter 

Crude 
protein 

Crude 
fiber 

N-free 
extract 

Carbo- 
hydrates 

Ether 
extract 

Total 
diges. 
nutr. 

8-12-21.  . 

2732 

177 

891 

1504 

2395 

96 

2788 

9-  1-21  

2610 

111 

925 

1272 

2197 

205 

2769 

9-22-21  

2660 

104 

1110 

1043 

2153 

348 

3040 

Apparently  there  is  no  advantage  in  allowing  the  sunflower  crop 
to  become  fully  mature  before  ensiling  it,  since  there  was  no  increase 
in  digestible  dry  matter  per  acre  during  the  forty  days  between  the 
first  and  the  third  cutting.  Both  the  crude-protein  and  the  nitrogen- 
free-extract  contents  decreased  with  advancing  maturity.  The  de- 
crease in  nitrogen-free  extract  was  accompanied  by  a  corresponding 
increase  in  ether-extract  content,  and  while  this  larger  proportion  of 
ether  extract,  for  which  the  seeds  were  chiefly  responsible,  served  to 
bring  the  yield  of  total  digestible  nutrients  of  the  crop  at  that  stage 
above  that  at  either  the  first  or  the  second  harvest  dates,  the  well- 
ripened  plants  contained  a  high  proportion  of  crude  fiber,  which 
greatly  lessened  the  palatability.  The  increase  in  crude  fiber  during 
the  forty  days  between  the  first  cutting  and  the  third  was  found  to  be 
approximately  25  percent. 


1This  was  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  portion  of  the  silage  which  it  was  planned 
to  use  molded  so  badly  that  it  had  to  be  discarded. 


1924]  THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A  SILAGE  CROP  211 

DIGESTIBILITY  OF  SUNFLOWER  SILAGE 

A  digestion  trial  was  carried  out  with  dairy  cows  in  an  attempt  to 
determine  the  digestibility  of  the  sunflower  silage  made  from  the  dif- 
ferent cuttings.  Unfortunately,  the  portion  of  the  third-cutting  silage 
which  was  planned  for  use  in  the  digestion  trial  did  not  keep,  so  that 
it  was  possible  to  make  digestibility  determinations  of  the  first-  and 
the  second-cutting  silage  only. 

The  cows  employed  were  two  Jerseys  (Nos.  155  and  234)  and  one 
Guernsey  (No.  217),  all  dry  and  farrow.  Cow  155  went  off  feed  about 
two  weeks  after  the  beginning  of  the  trial  and  was  replaced  by  Cow 
217.  Sunflower  silage  formed  the  entire  ration,  with  the  exception  of 
a  small  quantity  of  common  salt,  which  was  sprinkled  upon  the  silage 
at  the  time  of  feeding.  The  cows  were  kept  in  specially  constructed 
digestion  stalls,  except  during  the  preliminary  and  intermediate  feed- 
ing periods.  The  stalls  were  provided  with  tilting,  galvanized  iron 
mangers.  As  soon  as  the  cows  finished  eating,  the  mangers  were  tilted 
forward  to  prevent  the  cows  from  throwing  out  any  of  the  refused 
feed.  Excelsior  mattresses  covered  with  heavy  canvas  were  placed  on 
the  floors  of  the  stalls,  while  the  rear  parts  of  the  stall  floors  and  par- 
titions were  lined  with  galvanized  iron.  Large  galvanized  iron  catch 
pans  were  placed  on  the  lower  level  at  the  rear  of  the  stalls. 

The  sunflower  silage  for  the  day 's  feeding  was  obtained  fresh  from 
the  silo  each  morning.  It  was  thoroly  mixed  and  an  800-gram  sample 
was  taken  as  the  two  feeds  for  each  cow  were  weighed  out.  One  feed 
of  silage  was  given  at  once  and  the  other  was  placed  in  a  galvanized 
iron  can  for  the  afternoon  feeding.  The  sample  was  weighed  im- 
mediately and  as  soon  as  possible  was  placed  in  a  drying  oven  at  a 
temperature  of  45°  to  50°  C.  After  drying  for  two  to  three  days,  the 
sample  was  weighed  and  placed  in  a  half-gallon  glass  jar  provided  with 
a  tightly  fitting  cover.  The  dried  samples  representing  one  experi- 
mental period  were  ground  together  and  analyzed. 

The  orts  were  carefully  collected  and  weighed  each  morning  before 
feeding  time.  In  some  cases  the  entire  quantity  was  dried  and  kept 
for  analysis,  while  in  others  an  aliquot  was  taken  each  day.  The 
samples  of  the  orts  were  dried  in  the  same  oven  and  treated  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  silage  samples. 

Both  the  feces  and  the  urine  were  collected  directly  by  a  man  in 
constant  attendance  and  placed  in  galvanized  iron  cans  fitted  with 
tight  covers.  The  cans  had  previously  been  treated  with  a  solution  of 
10-percent  thymol  in  alcohol.  After  each  collection  of  feces,  a  small 
quantity  of  powdered  thymol  was  sifted  on  from  a  shaker-top  can. 
These  thymol  cans  were  weighed  daily  and  corrections  made  for  the 
weight  of  the  thymol  which  had  been  added  from  them.  At  the  end 
of  the  experimental  day  the  collections  of  excreta  were  weighed  and 


212 


BULLETIN  No.  253 


[July, 


sampled.  The  feces  were  mixed  thoroly  in  a  large,  specially  con- 
structed galvanized  iron  pan  and  a  large  aliquot  was  taken.  The 
sample  was  placed  in  a  one-gallon  friction-top  pail,  two  grams  of 
powdered  thymol  were  added,  and  the  pail  was  placed  in  a  refrigerator 
held  at  a  temperature  of  about  5°  C.  At  the  end  of  each  experimental 
period  the  aliquot  samples  representing  that  period  were  mixed  thoroly 
and  composited. 

Analyses  were  made  of  the  fresh  excreta,  determinations'  being 
made  in  the  same  manner  and  for  the  same  constituents  as  in  the  case 
of  the  feeds.  Instead  of  determining  the  true  protein,  however,  as 
was  done  with  the  feeds,  the  metabolic  nitrogen  was  determined,  the 
method  described  by  Forbes,  Mangels,  and  Morgan17  being  employed. 
An  estimation  of  the  metabolic  nitrogen  was  considered  essential  to  a 
correct  interpretation  of  the  results,  because  in  the  digestion  of  a 
ration  of  the  kind  fed,  which  was  less  than  normal  in  quantity  but 
above  normal  in  the  proportion  of  indigestible  crude  fiber,  there  would 
presumably  be  a  larger  proportion  of  unabsorbed  digestive  juices, 
epithelial  cells,  mucus,  etc.,  per  unit  of  dry  matter  in  the  feces  than 
with  a  normal  ration.  The  amount  of  protein  ingested  was  much 
below  normal,  Cow  217  having  an  intake  of  only  147  grams  daily. 

TABLE  13. — SUMMARY  OP  RESULTS  OP  DIGESTION  TRIAL  WITH  SUNFLOWER  SILAGE 


Coefficients  of  digestibility 

Kind  of 

Cor- 

silage 

Cow 

Dry 

Crude 

rected 

Crude 

N-free 

Ether 

No. 

matter 

protein 

crude 

fiber 

extract 

extract 

protein 

First  cutting.  . 

234 

47 

38 

64 

50 

60 

68 

n          a 

234 

43 

40 

63 

39 

54 

61 

it          a 

234 

42 

46 

70 

34 

49 

60 

«          « 

155 

48 

26 

59 

56 

60 

60 

Second  cutting 

234 

36 

27 

68 

35 

43 

66 

a            a 

234 

37 

29 

61 

35 

40 

68 

a            it 

217 

33 

11 

58 

36 

39 

63 

A  summary  of  the  results  obtained  in  the  digestion  trial  is  shown 
in  Table  13 ;  the  detailed  data  are  presented  in  Appendix  Table  6. 
These  results  are  not  wholly  in  agreement,  there  being  some  variability 
in  the  coefficients  secured  with  different  animals.  The  greatest  range 
of  variability  occurs  in  the  determinations  of  protein  and  crude  fiber. 
The  corrected  crude-protein  coefficients,  which  were  calculated  in  the 
usual  manner  after  first  deducting  the  metabolic  nitrogen  from  the 
total  nitrogen  of  the  feces,  show  a  much  closer  agreement  than  the 
ordinary  crude-protein  coefficients.  The  lack  of  agreement  in  results 
secured  with  different  cows  is  probably  due  to  irregular  consumption 


THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A  SILAGE  CROP  213 

and  excretion.  These  two  factors  were  particularly  noticeable  with 
Cow  217.  Lack  of  palatability  of  the  sunflower  silage  was  evidently 
the  cause  of  the  variation  in  appetite  from  day  to  day,  and  the  lack  of 
exercise  together  with  the  high  content  of  dry  matter  in  the  feces  were 
no  doubt  the  principal  factors  responsible  for  the  irregular  excretion. 
The  absence  of  close  agreement  between  some  of  the  coefficients  ac- 
cords with  the  results  secured  by  other  investigators  in  determinations 
of  the  digestibility  of  sunflower  silage. 

There  is,  on  the  whole,  a  distinct  difference  in  the  digestibility  of 
the  sunflower  silage  from  the  early  cutting  and  that  from  the  more 
mature  plants,  in  spite  of  some  lack  of  uniformity  of  the  coefficients 
secured.  The  early  cut  silage  proved  to  be  the  more  digestible,  as 
evidenced  especially  by  the  coefficients  of  digestibility  of  the  dry 
matter,  nitrogen-free  extract,  and  crude  fiber.  The  coefficients  of  di- 
gestibility of  the  dry  matter  of  the  early  cut  silage  were  approximately 
33!/3  percent  greater  than  those  found  for  the  silage  from  the  second 
cutting.  In  the  case  of  the  ether-extract  content  the  order  of  di- 
gestibility seems  to  be  reversed.  This  apparent  discrepancy  may  be 
accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  the  first-cutting  silage  contained  prac- 
tically no  developed  seeds,  while  the  second-cutting  silage  had  a  some- 
what larger  proportion.  The  ether  extract  of  the  seeds  consists  largely 
of  oil,  which  is  more  highly  digestible  than  the  crude-ether-extract  con- 
tent of  a  roughage  high  in  fiber.  A  similar  relationship  holds  in  the 
case  of  corn  silage  from  mature  and  from  immature  corn,  the  ether- 
extract  content  of  the  mature  corn  being  the  more  highly  digestible.22 

It  is  possible  that  the  coefficients  of  digestibility,  particularly  of 
crude  protein,  would  have  been  higher  had  not  a  considerable  quantity 
of  silage  juice,  containing  a  large  amount  of  solid  matter  in  solution  or 
in  suspension,  been  lost  from  the  silos  by  seepage. 

EFFECT  OF  SUNFLOWER  SILAGE  UPON 
COMPOSITION  OF  MILK 

Composite  samples  of  milk  of  seven  of  the  experimental  cows  were 
taken  every  fifth  week  during  the  course  of  the  feeding  trial,  beginning 
with  Period  III.  The  composites  consisted  of  aliquot  portions  of  each 
milking  during  three  consecutive  days.  These  samples  were  analyzed 
for  fat,  crude  protein,  sugar,  total  ash,  specific  gravity,  and  total 
solids.  The  analyses  indicated  very  slight  changes  in  the  composition 
of  the  milk  during  the  feeding  of  the  sunflower  silage.  Such  changes 
as  were  noted  were  in  the  direction  of  slightly  increased  fat,  protein, 
sugar,  and  total  solids.  There  is  no  proof  that  these  increases  were 
due  to  the  physiological  effects  upon  the  milk-secreting  system  of  com- 
pounds contained  in  the  sunflower  silage.  It  is  most  likely  that  the 
lessened  volume  of  milk  shown  to  have  been  produced  during  the  sun- 


214  BULLETIN  No.  253  [July, 

flower  silage  periods,  primarily  as  a  result  of  a  lower  nutrient  intake, 
was  the  factor  responsible  for  the  very  minor  increases  noted  in  the 
percentage  of  the  solid  constituents. 

No  exact  tests  were  made  to  determine  whether  or  not  the  feeding 
of  sunflower  silage  affects  the  flavor  of  the  milk.  However,  no  differ- 
ences in  this  respect  were  noticed  when  the  ration  was  changed  from 
corn  silage  to  sunflower  silage  or  vice  versa. 

SUMMARY 

The  object  of  this  investigation  was  to  determine  the  stage  of 
development  at  which  the  sunflower  crop  should  be  ensiled  for  highest 
milk  production.  The  investigation  included  a  study  of  feeding  value 
of  the  silage  and  the  yield  of  digestible  nutrients  per  acre. 

Sunflowers  Harvested  at  Three  Dates. — Mammoth  Russian  sun- 
flowers planted  on  May  18,  1921,  were  harvested  at  three  different 
dates:  on  August  13,  when  approximately  23  percent  of  the  plants 
were  coming  into  bloom ;  on  September  1  and  2,  when  approximately 
95  percent  of  the  plants  were  in  bloom  and  nearly  half  the  leaves  had 
been  killed  by  rust ;  and  on  September  21  and  22,  when  most  of  the 
plants  had  seeds  in  the  dough  stage  and  all  but  a  few  leaves  at  the 
tops  of  the  canes  had  died. 

Earliest  Cutting  Gave  Highest  Milk  Yield. — The  silage  from  the 
first  cutting  of  sunflowers  kept  the  milk  flow  nearer  to  the  level  main- 
tained on  corn  silage  rations  than  did  that  from  either  the  second  or 
the  third  cutting.  Not  only  did  it  contain  a  somewhat  larger  amount 
of  digestible  nutrients  per  pound  but  the  cows  ate  it  more  readily. 
Also  the  loss  in  live  weight  was  less  when  the  cows  were  fed  the  first- 
cutting  silage  than  when  fed  silage  of  the  later  cuttings. 

Earliest  Cutting  the  Most  Palatable. — The  sunflower  silage  was 
less  palatable,  on  the  whole,  than  the  corn  silage.  Of  the  three  cuttings 
of  sunflower  silage,  the  first  was  slightly  more  palatable  than  the 
second,  while  the  third  was  by  far  the  least  palatable.  From  a  prac- 
tical standpoint,  palatability  proved  to  be  the  most  decisive  factor  in 
determining  the  value  of  the  different  silages.  It  seems  evident  that 
had  the  consumption  of  the  sunflower  silage  been  sufficiently  large,  the 
production  of  milk  would  have  been  nearly  or  fully  as  great  as  when 
the  cows  were  fed  corn  silage. 

No  Physical  Disturbances  Were  Apparent. — Sunflower  silage  was 
much  less  laxative  than  corn  silage.  No  diuretic  effects  were  noted, 
nor  were  any  digestive  disturbances  apparent. 

So  far  as  could  be  determined,  the  feeding  of  sunflower  silage  did 
not  affect  the  composition  of  the  milk,  and  no  changes  in  flavor  were 
noticed. 


19 £4}  THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A  SILAGE  CROP  215 

Sunflower  Silage  Lower  in  Nutrients  Than  Corn  Silage. — Sunflower 
silage  made  from  the  mature  plants  was  higher  in  every  constituent, 
other  than  water,  than  silage  from  the  less  mature  plants,  and  con- 
tained a  much  higher  proportion  of  crude  fiber  and  ether  extract. 
As  compared  with  corn  silage,  the  sunflower  silage  was  lower  in  dry 
matter,  crude  protein,  and  nitrogen-free  extract,  but  higher  in  crude 
fiber,  ether  extract,  and  ash.  The  true  protein  content  of  the  sun- 
flower silage  formed  a  larger  proportion  of  the  crude  protein  than  it 
did  in  the  case  of  the  corn  silage.  Sunflowers  apparently  must  be 
in  a  relatively  less  mature  stage  than  corn  at  the  time  they  are  ensiled, 
or  at  least  have  a  higher  moisture  content,  in  order  to  insure  their 
preservation  as  silage. 

Changes  in  Composition  Followed  Ensiling. — The  ensiling  of  the 
sunflowers  caused  a  small  loss  or  transformation  of  crude  protein  and 
nitrogen-free  extract.  The  contents  of  ether  extract  and  organic  acids 
were  increased. 

Early  Cut  Silage  More  Highly  Digestible. — The  results  of  a  diges- 
tion trial  with  non-lactating  cows  showed  the  silage  from  the  early  cut 
sunflower  plants  to  be  more  highly  digestible  than  the  silage  from 
the  second  cutting,  the  dry  matter  being  881/3  percent  more  digestible. 

Early  Cutting  Recommended. — There  was  no  advantage  in  allow- 
ing the  crop  to  mature  fully  before  ensiling  it.  The  yield  of  digestible 
dry  matter  per  acre  decreased  slightly  during  the  forty-day  period 
between  the  first  and  the  third  cuttings.  While  an  increase  of  about 
9  percent  in  yield  of  total  digestible  nutrients  may  be  assumed  in  the 
silage  from  the  third  cutting  as  compared  with  the  first  cutting,  this 
was  more  than  offset  by  the  decrease  in  palatability  resulting  from 
the  higher  content  of  crude  fiber. 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The  author  wishes  to  express  his  thanks  for  the  cooperation  of  the  Division 
of  Dairy  Chemistry  in  conducting  the  analytical  work  involved  in  this  investiga- 
tion. The  complete  analyses  of  the  milk  were  carried  out  by  Dr.  O.  B.  Overman 
and  Mr.  F.  P.  Sanmann  as  part  of  the  experimental  work  involved  in  their  in- 
vestigations of  the  composition  of  the  milk  of  different  breeds  of  dairy  cows.  All 
of  the  other  analytical  determinations  were  made  by  Mr.  C.  Y.  Tsang  under  the 
direction  of  Dr.  O.  B.  Overman. 


216  BULLETIN  No.  253  [July, 

LITERATURE  CITED 

1.  ANTHONY,  E.  L.,  and  HENDERSON,  H.  O.     Sunflowers  vs.  corn  for  silage. 

W.  Va.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Cire.  32.     1920. 

2.  Agr.  Gaz.  Canada  7,  818,  819,  1920;    Exp.  Sta.  Rec.  44,  370.     1921. 

3.  ARMSBY,  H.  P.     The  nutrition  of  farm  animals.     Appendix  Table  1.    1917. 

4.  • The  nutrition  of  farm  animals.     Appendix  Table  3.    1917. 

5.    and  FRIES,  J.  A.     Net  energy  values  for  ruminants.     Pa.  Agr. 

Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  142.     1916. 

6.  ARNETT,  C.  N.,  and  TRETSVEN,  O.    Sunflower  silage  for  dairy  cows.    Mont. 

Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  118.     1917. 

7.  ARNETT,  C.  N.,  JOSEPH,  W.  E.,  and  TRETSVEN,  O.    Growing  and  feeding  sun- 

flowers in  Montana.     Mont.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  131.     1919. 

8.  BARTLETT,  J.  M.    Sunflowers  and  English  horse  beans  as  silage  crops.    Me. 

Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Rpt.  1896.     32. 

9.  BECHDEL,  S.  I.    Sunflower  silage  no  good.    Hoard's  Dairyman  62,  33.    1921. 

10.     Sunflower  silage  for  milk  production.     Pa.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui. 

172.     1922. 

11.  BUSH,   M.  J.     Factors  influencing  quality   and   composition   of   sunflower 

silage.     Mont.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  141.     1921. 

12.  BLIZZARD,  W.  L.     Cattle  feeding  investigation.     Okla.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui. 

134.     1920. 

13.  Boss,  ANDREW.     Sunflower  silage.     Hoard's  Dairyman  61,  415.     1921. 

14.  Colo.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.     Sunflower  silage  for  dairy  cows.    Sta.  Rpt.  1920.    19. 

15.  DOWELL,  C.  T.  and  FRIEDMANN,  W.  G.     The  composition  and  digestibility 

of  Sudan  grass  hay,  darso,  darso  silage,  broom  corn  seed  and  sunflower 
silage.     Okla.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.     Bui.  132.     1920. 

16.  FlTCH,  J.  B.    Wild  sunflowers  for  silage.    Breeder's  Gaz.  78,  254.     1920. 

17.  FORBES,  E.  B.,  MANGELS,  C.  E.,  and  MORGAN,  L.  E.    A  study  of  methods  of 

estimation  of  metabolic  nitrogen.    Jour.  Agr.  Res.  9,  405-411.     1917. 

18.  GAINES,  W.  L.  and  DAVIDSON,  F.  A.     Relation  between  percentage  fat  con- 

tent and  yield  of  milk.     111.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  245.     1923. 

19.  Ga.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Rpt.  1922,  10. 

20.  GRINDLEY,  H.  S.,  et  al.     Fertilizing  constituents  excreted  by  two-year-old 

steers.     HI.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  209.     1918. 

21.  HAECKER,  T.  L.    Feeding  dairy  cows.    Minn.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  130.    1913. 

22.  HENRY,  W.  A.,  and  MORRISON,  F.  B.    Feeds  and  feeding.    Appendix  Table 

2.    1915. 

23.  HOLDEN,  J.  A.     Silage  test.     U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Circ.  173.     1921. 

24.  HOPPER,   H.   A.     Sunflower   silage   in   New   York.      Hoard's  Dairyman   57, 

864.     1919. 

25.  BUTTON,  G.  H.    Silos  and  silage  crops.    Can.  Pac.  Ry.  Co.    1920. 

26.  JONES,  ROY  C.     Oats  and  vetch  versus  corn  or  sunflowers  for  silage.     Ore. 

Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  194.     1922. 

27.  JOSEPH,  W.  E.     Work  of  the  Montana  Experiment  Station  on  sunflowers 

as  a  silage  crop.     Proc.  Amer.  Soc.  Anim.  Prod.     1920. 

28.  —       —  and  BLISH,  M.  J.     Studies  on  the  digestibility  of  sunflower  silage. 

Mont.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  134.     1920. 

29.  KNIGHT,  C.  S.    Silage  crops  for  Nevada.    Nev.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  91.    1918. 

30.  McKiLLiCAN,  W.  C.    Farm  Adv.  and  Home  Jour.  56,  632.     1921.    Exp.  Sta. 

Rec.  45,  72.     1921.    Report  of  work  at  Brandon,  Manitoba  Exp.  Farm. 

31.  Mich.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.    Sunflower  silage.     Quart.    Bui.  2,  163.     1920. 

32.  Nebr.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Rpt.  1920.     28. 

33.  NEIDIG,  R.  E.,  and  VANCE,  LULU  E.     Sunflower  silage.     Jour.  Agr.  Res.  18, 

325.     1919-20. 

34.  NEIDIG,  R.  E.,  SNYDER,  R.  S.,  and  HICKMAN,  C.  W.    Sunflower  silage  digestion 

experiment  with  cattle  and  sheep.    Jour.  Agr.  Res.  20,  881.     1921. 

35.  Nev.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Rpt.  1918.  25-7. 

36.  Pa.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.     Sunflower  silage.     Bui.  170,  21.     1922. 

37.  QUAYLE,  W.  L.     Comparison   of   corn  ensilage  and  sunflower  ensilage  for 

dairy  cows.    Wyo.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  State  Farms  Bui.  3.     1922. 


THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A  SILAGE  CROP 


217 


38.  QUESENBERRY,  G.  E.,  CUNNINGHAM,  O.  C.,  and  FOSTER,  L.     The  culture  and 

feeding  of  Russian  sunflowers.    N.  Mex.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  126.    1921. 

39.  SCHAFER,  E.  G.,  and  WESTLEY,  E.  O.    Sunflower  production  for  silage.  Wash. 

Agr.  Exp.  Sta.     Bui.  162.     1921. 

40.  SHAW,  E.  H.,  and  WRIGHT,  P.  A.    A  comparative  study  of  the  composition 

of  the  sunflower  and  corn  plants  at  different  stages  of  growth.     Jour. 
Agr.  Ees.  20,  787.     1920-21. 

41.  SOTOLA,  J.    Studies  on  digestibility  of  sunflower  silage  fed  to  sheep.    Wash. 

Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  161.     1921. 

42.  THATCHER,  L.  E.     Sunflowers  for  silage  in  Ohio.     Ohio  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.   Mo. 

Bui.  7,  42.     1922. 

43.  VINALL,  H.  N.    The  sunflower  as  a  silage  crop.    U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Bui.  1045. 

1922. 

44.  Wash.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.    Sunflower  silage  vs.  corn  silage.    Bui.  158,  18.    1920. 

45.  Wis.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.     Sunflowers  for  silage.     Bui.  339,  96.     1922. 


APPENDIX 


TABLE  1. — TOTAL  NUTRIENTS  CONSUMED 


Period 

Group 

Feed 

Amount 
fed 

Dry 

matter 

Protein 

Crude 
fiber 

N-free 
extract 

Ether 
extract 

I 

A 

Sunflower  silage 
Grain  

Ibs. 
4579.0 
1260.5 

Ibs. 
1036.69 
1127.51 

Ibs. 
73.72 
197.26 

Ib3. 
427.67 
98.94 

/6s. 
378.68 
732.85 

/6s. 
52.66 
43.48 

Hay 

1789  I 

1659.53 

283.70 

577.23 

563.21 

44.17 

B 

Corn  silage  .... 

3491.8 
828  0 

1141.12 
740.64 

98.47 
129.58 

245  .  82 
64.99 

681  .  58 
481.39 

33.17 
28.56 

Hay  

1050.8 

974.74 

167.58 

338.98 

330.92 

25.86 

II 

A 

Corn  silage  .... 
Grain  

5200.0 
1204.0 

1826.24 
1086.00 

157.56 
198.41 

418.08 
87.41 

1093.04 
703.13 

52.00 
37.32 

Hay 

1611  6 

1509.90 

232.87 

505.55 

601.61 

30.94 

B 

Sunflower  silage 
Grain   

2557.0 
584  0 

579.42 
526.76 

41.42 
96.24 

242.92 
42.39 

208.40 
341.00 

29.15 
18.10 

Hay  

932.5 

873.66 

134.74 

292  .  53 

348.10 

17.90 

III 

A 

Sunflower  silage 
Grain  

3122.5 
1527.5 

942.06 
1369.86 

62.76 
249.13 

420.91 
111.20 

326.30 

888.47 

46.84 
52.69 

Hay 

2331  5 

2176.68 

342  24 

751.90 

808.33 

52.69 

B 

Corn  silage  .... 
Grain    

6647.5 
1691.0 

1893.87 
1516.47 

180.81 
275.80 

401.51 
123.10 

1123.43 
981.79 

51.18 
58.33 

Hay  

1892.5 

1766.83 

277.81 

610.33 

656.12 

42.77 

IV 

A 

Corn  silage  .... 

5824.0 
1148  0 

1877.08 
1031  24 

174.14 
186  89 

391.96 
72.66 

1130.44 
675.15 

68.14 
54.30 

Hay  

1618  0 

1516.22 

254  .  99 

477.47 

585.55 

42.71 

B 

Sunflower  silage 
Grain  
Hay 

1721.0 
1156.0 
1434  0 

544  .  18 
1038.43 
1343  80 

37.17 
188.19 
225  99 

229.58 
73.17 
423.17 

199  12 
679.84 
518.96 

27.19 
54.67 
37.85 

V 

A 

Sunflower  silage 
Grain    .  . 

7942.0 
1621.0 

1628.90 
1499.10 

135.81 
226.45 

608  .  36 
123.03 

652.04 
994  .  32 

63.54 
97.26 

Hay 

2386  0 

2278  15 

364  81 

701  72 

919.56 

63.47 

B 

Dorn  silage  .... 
Grain.  .  . 

7219.5 
1691  0 

2336.95 
1563.83 

201.41 
261.09 

488.04 
128.34 

1444.62 
981.62 

67.86 
101.46 

VI 

A 

Hay  

3orn  silage  .... 
Grain  

1926.5 

8764.0 
1651  0 

1839.42 

2881.60 
1480  12 

294.56 

241.88 
266  63 

566.58 

667.81 
121.34 

742.47 

1708.10 
"957.08 

51.24 

78.00 
67.36 

Hay  

2325.0 

2198.52 

385.02 

626.12 

'887.45 

60.91 

B 

Sunflower  silage 
Grain  

6125.5 
1596  0 

1380.08 
1430  81 

110.26 
257  75 

515.15 
117.30 

*571.51 
925.20 

52.68 
65.11 

Hay  

1960.0 

1853.37 

324  .  58 

527.82 

748.13 

51.25 

218 


BULLETIN  253:   APPENDIX 


[July, 


5 

,sss 

IN.            r-  1   t^  h, 

O       CD(N^ 

8    SoSS 

fc    SS2 

S   f^g 

S    2SS 

s 

a 

<0 

1 

E^*"*1'* 

S3IS 

~>       O500"5 

I    -§S 

>o     b-ooo 

OJ       CNt^O 

O       OS  OS  CO 

h; 

1* 

OSgOS 

fo     w-sj 

g       g-8 

Ol       t^  OS  CO 
CO       CO  CO  CO 

CO       t-INCO 

OS       COINCO 
CO        CN-HCO 

2 

.    .    3 

30 

o 
H 

,T»ltN,CN 

j»os£-gs 

^  CO  00  00 

S     £fc8 

*O     co  co  ^* 
00       MOOOO 

CO       OCOC- 
-l       0)000 

8OOSCO 
COcOCS 
«-i      coOi-i 

CO       U51OOO 

IN        —  :~    - 

CO       M  OOS 

O) 

co 

"8 

§§00 

2        §0000 

S    S2K 

>-i      b-OO 
"5       00-HOO 

N.       O)Tf"IN 
h-      cooso 

O)       OSOO) 

8 

V 

.^•COCO 

l>-       t^COCS 

s  ^^^ 

o     ocoo 

^'       -HOOCO 

3 

H 

_gcoc 

S 

B 

sss 

CO       OSt^OJ 

os    §22 

CO       5SS 

8U5COOS 
•-  i  -  r. 

o     —  ,,  _ 

,JH          COO^ 

2 

N-free  exi 

«N 

Cf£       CO  CO  00 
"5       OOOSCO 

S  g§i 

^        CO  00  O 

CO       OCO-i 
^       COO100 
CO        rHt^UJ 

|          |§§ 

c; 

i 

SS° 

00       OOTflcO 

00       U50000 

S       ggJOS 

CO       CO  00  CO 

U5       OOCO^t" 
(>•       OSOS^ 

CO 

Crude  fi 

.OJNOO 

•*       "5IN-* 

CO       IN^OJ 

IO        ~Z    f  '~. 

00       00  »-t  N 

O       OSl^CO 
CN        rl        CO 

o     2e<lir' 

0 

ES 

i 

cooo. 

o     gjcog. 

S   S2?S 

•^J       ^HCDCO 

O       INOOOS 

•-H       OJ.CO01 

s 

1 

V 

i 

41*28 

CO            I-I--I 

o     o  *o  ^ 

t^       OOU5CO 

O               t*»  O5 

s  asi 

"5     os^os 

1 

1 

sss 

§       t-ii-cOO 

CO       NCOTjl 

O3       ^OQ 
•-<        OO5W 

S   f^wS 

us     locogs 
cs      os  os  O 

0 

I 

s 

^COOOOl 

M 

00       OJOOOS 

|      CNc^u, 

CO       CO  ^*  CO 
IN       (NCOO 
^H       CO  O  CO 

III 

I 

1 

S)     : 

4) 

;  a  ; 

2 

• 

3  1 

w 

3   | 

"3     *• 

V 

s  I 

"3 

l.s' 

III 

uo« 

I'll 

|8    g  : 

H       m  fl 

t»OW 

OOK 

0 

a 
O 

< 

M 

- 

M 

^ 

. 

1 

« 

a 

5 

1924] 


THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A  SILAGE  CROP 


219 


a 

glOOOCO 

i-l       TJIUSCO 

S    §2§ 

CN       (NCOOO 

,    3=g 

OS       OCNi-" 

X 

Net  en 

liil 

§"85 

CO       COOt- 

00       COCOCN 

oo     M^N! 

CN        iHiH 

1-1     ooooo) 

CO       CNOUS 

CO            i-l 

05 
0 
OS 

— 
3 

ll 

§COCO 
US-* 

O>       USOCN 
00       OCOT* 

fc    ^!5o 

0>        OOCOrl 

CO        rHOJCO 

CD       OOl-Oi 
CO       t-O)00 

S 

!1 

3  a 

;OCNOOOO 

OS       CNOOt- 
CN 

O      O  00  00 

CO        rHiHiH 

•*        -^OJCO 
US       i-icOCO 
00       OJ-HCN 
CO       i-lrtrt 

§B§1 

00 

1 

I-  00  CO 
OOCNCN 

00       OOJOO 
CO       CO  US  CO 

t-       CNi-HO 

US        Or-lrt 

CN       COCO  •* 

t-       O)i-l^-< 

t-      USOOO 
CN       COCO^ 

co 

1 

.us  us  cc 

-H        i-H-^i-l 

I--       COOOCN 

^         US         i-l 

O5       COCOCO 

2 

1 

SINUS 

5;   "2® 

00       TJII-.00 

CO       CO  O)  US 

<-<       USOiCO 

Tt<         t-OOOS 

§0-^US 
i-l  00  CO 

§ 

N-free  ext 

.CNCNi-" 

to     O5COCO 

t-            U5CO 

§O5  US  CN 
usoco 
cot-  co 

IN       CNOCO 
t—       OCOUS 

2CNCNOO 
-HOOCO 

CO       CNt-CO 
CM       i-l 

•*       COCDOO 

CO       COt-US 
CN 

S 

£«;5 

8       SSi 

O      t—  Ol  t— 

t—       CO  O5  00 
CO       CNiHUS 

Soot-  co 
O^CN 

GO        -HCOCO 

S 

Crude  fil 

if* 

O5       00  CO  00 

US       t-CN-H 

O5        OUSO 
CN       (N       CO 

CN       t-USCO 

21-H  US  ^ 
CO       CN 

CO       T)<CNOi 
i-C        COUSCO 

S       CNOCO 
USUSCN 

t-       CN       IN 

S 

>0 

I 

00.-IO 

OJ       OCCU3 

t-       CO  O  O 

S    HS2 

S   8SS 

CN       OOCDUS 
CN       t—  US  ^ 

O5 

2 
a 

1 

o 

.OOCD-H 
^WOO^JOO 

US       T*l-Q 

—       ^  t—  us 
CO            i-lCN 

3858 

CO       COOOCO 

§CO  O  CO 
CNCN 

oo 

CO 

V 

t-ppco 

00       CN-HOO 
i-l       t-O.CN 

^       O<NO> 
O       090000 

CO       CO  CO  CO 

CO        COTt<r-« 

•*       OCNO 

CM 

CO 

Dry  mal 

.OOOOg 

CO 

C3J       -H^-ICD 

S       CNOCO 
•fOOO 
CN       USrtrt 
CO        rli-li-l 

CO        T-*  t-  O5 

CN       O-ni-< 
00       OSi-HCO 
55        rHr-li-l 

3    <023 

oo 

CN 

1 

<u 

m 

&  :  ' 

a    •    • 

ill 

a)    •    • 

;    S,  '  ' 

cm  .    . 

a   •   • 

a    •    • 

5      *    '    ' 

I   1  :  i 

3  S  '•  • 

3    ^  *  • 

a 

OOB 

o      £    '.    . 

o      &    .    . 

£    ^  •  • 

e-s^ 
6oa 

c3oa 

"8    &  :  : 

1 

o 

- 

. 

< 

. 

< 

, 

| 

1 

>~ 

> 

> 

220 


BULLETIN  253:    APPENDIX 


[July, 


Q    rt 

B| 

S   a> 

w  ^ 

93     O 
O     0> 

H     b£ 


&i      CP 

o  g 


wg 


Jrt       CN^-H(NCO       O5  (N  -H  OS  - 


JUSUS**       OCNOCOt-       O«5t^OOCO       •*O-*COO       COOCqoO 
5-HOii-i       OO»i-<CNh»       "5  Tf  1-1  "O  t-       COOOOCO©       00  00  O  O 


CNOOCNCO       O  O  CM  r 


"-"  T(<  CN  US  1-1       O«Tl<COlM       Tjt 

OOCXX)O>00       ii  h-  00  *#  I—       OO 
>0«M       rH  INCOUSM^       a 


vHlQ       CO       CN  TO  O  ^H  00  US 


CO       CO  1-1 


COt-COMCO       Olt-COOJt- 


corocoooco 

USCC-HCNi-l 


COUSOOOOCN       -*-nO>COOO       CO-K35O5-*       O  CO  CO  US 


OCOOS^CN 

INCOCNNCO'       U5-HCJUSU5       il 


NWOCOO5       h-OOCOtNM       --^ 


JO       CO  00  CO  *O 
•*  Tt<  CO  CO  CO       ii5(NCO^<       iiCONCOOO       t~USCOTJ'Tj(       U300K5CO 

OOOMCOIN        MO5O5O5CQ        COOOCOCOOO        O5NCOOSO5        NCOO500 


OOOOZ    OO&Q 


:  :^  :*-' 

O5      *      |  O5 

oo    ; 

;    oo   :   ; 

:  :^  :^ 

" 

*     ^3    •    |rs 

s^ 

:   °°us 

;    ;  o  0  o     _c 

o      oT   *  o  oT 

o_o 

a?_o 

\  :I?I   S 

£ 

a  f|*|{ 

Is. 

«     osjn 

«i 

5-C3  g^  « 

**  -*  *•=;  *     *« 


»«      -« 

OajwOQ  D 


jg  V         A  M 

.S     -03     --S 


- 

C   t-  d        %&  C8^S 
u 


O—  u«  O        B  J* 


OOOOO       OOOC 


19X4] 


THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A.  SILAGE  CROP 


221 


TABLE  4. — COEFFICIENTS  OF  DIGESTIBILITY  AND  NET  ENERGY  VALUES  USED 
CALCULATION  OF  DIGESTIBLE  NUTRIENTS  AND  THERMS 
OF  ENERGY  IN  FEEDS  CONSUMED 


Coefficients  of  digestion 

Dry 
substance 

Crude 
protein 

Corrected 
crude 
protein 

Crude 
fiber 

N-free 
extract 

Ether 
extract 

Sunflower  silage,  Silo  8,  1st  cutting1  . 
Sunflower  silage,  Silo  7,  2d  cutting2  . 
Sunflower  silage,  Silo  9,  3d  cutting5  . 
Corn  silage4  

46.16 
34.68 
34.68 
66.00 
60.00 
75.50 

33.36 
19.58 
19.58 
51.0 
71.0 
78.2 

62.46 
61.71 
61.71 

48.94 
35.55 
35.55 
65.00 
43.00 
43.00 

55.31 
40.04 
40.04 
71.00 
72.00 
81.80 

61.41 
64.74 
64.74 
82.00 
38.00 
83.40 

Alfalfa  hay4  

Grain  mixture*  

1  From  Appendix  Table  6,  average  of  Cows  234  and  155. 

2  From  Appendix  Table  6,  average  of  Cows  234  and  217. 
1  Assumed  same  as  2d  cutting. 

4  From  Henry  and  Morrison,  Feeds  and  Feeding,  Appendix  Table  II. 

*  Compiled  from  Henry  and  Morrison.  Weighted  average  of  coefficients  for  grains  composing  the 
mixture. 

NET  ENERGY  VALUES' 

Net  energy  value  of  silage  equals  1 . 588  therms  per  pound  of  digestible  organic  matter  minus 
52.54  therms  per  cwt.  of  total  dry  matter. 

Net  energy  value  of  alfalfa  hay  equals  1 . 588  therms  per  pound  of  digestible  organic  matter  minus 
53 . 03  therms  per  cwt.  of  total  dry  matter. 

Net  energy  value  of  grain  mixture  equals  1 . 808  therms  per  pound  of  digestible  organic  matte  r 
minus  55.01  therms  per  cwt.  of  total  dry  matter. 

1  Calculated  from  values  given  by  Armsby  and  Fries,  Pa.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bui.  142,  1916. 


TABLE  5. — URINE  EXCRETION  OF  Cows  FED  SUNFLOWER  SILAGE  ONLY  AND  OF  ONE 
FED  A  MIXED  RATION  CONTAINING  CORN  SILAGE 


Cow 

No. 

Ration 

Volume 
daily 

Specific 
gravity 

Total 
nitrogen 
in  urine 

234 

Sunflowe   silage   1st  cutting  

gms. 
8583 

1.0159 

percent 
0.40 

234 

Sunflowe   silage   1st  cutting  

9030 

1.0145 

0.34 

234 

Sunflowe   silage   1st  cutting  

10793 

1  0148 

0  37 

155 

Sunflowe    silage    1st  cutting  

8176 

1.0153 

0.40 

155 

5380 

1  0187 

0.51 

234 

Sunflowe   silage  2d  cutting      

11231 

1.0149 

0.28 

234 

11783 

1  0156 

0  27 

217 

Sunflower  silage  2d  cutting      

9397 

1  0124 

0.37 

217 

Sunflower  silage  2d  cutting  

9014 

1.0108 

0.31 

274 

Mixed  ration,  ad  lib  

14089 

1.0288 

0.70 

274 

Mixed  ration,  ad  lib     

14775 

1  0295 

0.73 

274 

Mixed  ration  

9245 

1.0285 

0.80 

274 

Mixed  ration  

11516 

1.0271 

0.60 

222 


BULLETIN  253:    APPENDIX 


[July, 


I 

i 

tf 
a 
I 


-COIN 

rH^,t,CO 

JS 

R 

If  SS  : 

coco-^ 

CO^O^CN 

5 

Ether 
extrac 

i 

ft 

•  CO  CO  SO  (N  ^ 

8 

|! 

.rt  U51C 

S  S  (N  ^  t^  SO 

cs 

••JiCOi— 

I1 

w~*t. 

0) 

11 

^2°° 

}f  digestib 

^  <N  CO  OS  CN  CO 

§coiNcor»co 
o 
co     co  —  •—  < 

-r 

(N 

a 

^INf 

o 

coor-co-H 

§ 

os 

7 

Compos! 

|>i-.i-i<N 

Calculat 

~  O5  ^^  t>-  O5  00 
gOl<N  I^OcO 

N 

-So 

"S 

O 

•     •     -1C     • 

M 

Metabo 
nitroge 

Is' 

T3 

I      ° 

ca   .    .    .        ! 

3 

q 

_O 

-00  f» 

^WCOU,      . 

"3  * 

H.£ 
c 

(S 

CO 
(N 

gooo 

S  1-1         rl 

0> 

1 

TCOCO 

^cooot--. 

8 

3 

01 

|8M 

„,••«<  CO  Q  (N  00 

0 

Tf 

0-CO 

fc  1—  1  l-l  O 

V         a) 

u  ,    , 

r  ents  in  silage  fed  .  .  . 
r  ents  in  orts  
r  ents  consumed  
r  ents  in  feces  
tr  ents  digested  

>. 

u 
'c 

^   »-«  4> 

33333 

c 
0 

Tf«  i-H  Ql 

ocot---    • 

!""" 

S  iO  o  10  00     • 

co  coo 

US  CO  IN  CO  OJ 

• 

•g    '    ' 

^CMMgOJg 

SO^StNCO 

Cft 

0 
9 

THOOI^ 

OTf.cor-o> 

O 

"§000500 

^"O  CO  00  CO  1-1 
CO       IQCNCO 

S 

i-l  00  ^f 

.$ 

USOOt^CO- 

2 

S 

.0 

• 
V 

.y 

„•  (N  CN  O3  00  ^ 
Qi 

CO 

o 

«oo.o 

c 
o 

00.-WCO 

IQ 

^ 

^H 

S 
a 

O 

O 

ft 

Calculat 

^Or-lNlMOJ 

S  •«<  '   co  oo  'O 

Ql 

S 

ej 

.  .8 

•    •    -o    • 

[J 

i 

c 

in3 

1  i  i  Is  i 

0 

1 

-Hl^-* 

U5^^.co     • 

CO 
04 

0 

"gddd 
a. 

l^iS  : 

.t^Wf 

ft 

OCNOOCOiO 

Sioco--iSi-i 
6 

"5  -H  ^"00  CO 

OB 
M 

T 

Jsi 

Ct^       CO 

I 

rients  in  silage  fed 
rients  in  orts  
rients  consumed  .  . 
rients  in  feces  .... 
rients  digested  .... 

15 

1 

I 
•8 

"5 

03  ,-   w 

cZOfe 

33333 

5 

1924] 


THE  SUNFLOWER  AS  A  SILAGE  CROP 


223 


si 
•~i 

tf 

f 


3  2 

"S.-s 


1 


OH 


w--^ 
^.  <M  ^r- 

SlNNTO 
O. 

1OI>-00'!)' 

2INMOO  TC 
g^iOOO 
C»CO       CO  10 

(M<NO 

ot^wo-^1 

** 
C 

l^'oo 
ft. 

•  O  "O  •*  O5  Tfi 

2  T)<  T-H  IN  t^  M« 

fcOO       00(NU3 
O 

S 

•*  -^O) 

OOOINOO 

% 

"^00(35  OS 
(X 

•  «5  IN  COO  00 

2or^TOt»io 

St^M^COb- 

toco     coroiN 

CM 
<* 

MOlO 

>, 

X55OO-HOO 

oc 

0 

?OOWO5 

digestibili 

„•  IN  M  00  CS  O 

2  1^  *i  ic  co  -< 
e  •*-*ooj'-' 

^CO       COM  CM 

-f 

07 

O 

COTd—  1 

*o 

e 

>O-*'-iOOCC 

CO 

c 

1 

a 

o 
y 

I-'-" 

Calculatio 

•  t^  i-  CO  CO  CM 
2OiCCCO(NT»< 

BCN     IN  aim 

<3:^ 

t^ 

C^l 

•  1-J 

.  .   -o   • 

?) 

CC 

1     d 

n. 

•S    •••<•• 

I  :  :  :s  : 

a   ... 

t» 

CC 

£2fe 

lOOOt^O    • 

?ddc 

1 

•CNT)<t-00     • 
§0       «•*     . 
R  (M       i-i  i-(     • 

a 

•*O5CN 

oi^cccot^ 

CO 
CN 

'"MCO'IO 

fecNINCN 

n. 

^  O  CO  M  IO  t~ 

SOOOOOINCO 
fcO5t^-HMOO 

CO       COO«5 

ci 

^OOO5 
SiOMO) 

Qt^     n 

% 

ts  in  silage  fed  
s  in  orts  
s  consumed  
s  in  feces  
s  digested  

digestibility  

9 

e  a  a  a  a 

OJ   <U   <V   OJ   CD 

c 

Mm£ 

tn    (_i    Lri    l_    LH 

,,  ; 

—  !    L-    4! 

coOfe 

33333 
ZZZZZ, 

1 

0 

cc  co  co 

KIN  IN  IN 
1 

OC5  —  00 
gCNiOCOOO 

IN  —  CO 

OM-CO- 

cb 

«-oo 

^  O  TJ<  10  !>.  00 
ScO       b-CNin 

a 

cc 

OOIN 

OWX50.0 

5 

I"- 

CO       COMIN 

S 

•0-HM 

fe 

U5U50-05 

oo 

"jPoroo 

A 

digestibili 

CO       COCOCM 

0? 

a 

COO3O 

"o 

0-»Wr*. 

S 

Compositi 

I- 

Calculatio 

2l>COOOO(N 

S 

Id 

...(-. 

00 

1        d 

...   .to   • 

1  :  :  :*  : 

a  •    •    • 

bb 
..3 

"CO5CM 

«?^-o   . 

•2  ° 

?OOO 

B 
& 

a 

nitrogen  c 
ilo  7,  secor 

OCCOl 

WNMO^ 

ro 

,005 

"o  v 

felNCNIN 

a 

g  CO  'C  —  OS  <N 

a         i        ,0 

i- 

co 

n  of  metab 
flower  silag 

§COM 
COIN 

gCB 
1 

~a  'S 

.S-H 

SSw 

^ 

r  ents  in  silage  fed  . 
r  ents  in  orts  
r  ents  consumed  .  .  . 
r  ents  in  feces  
r  ents  digested  

f.  of  digestibility  .  .  . 

'Corrected  protein  c 
'Sunflower  silage,  Si 

~  ^  cu 
wQfc 

Illll 

o 
0 

224 


BULLETIN  253:    APPEXDIX 


[July, 


*)*>* 

ClOWCC 

1 

F; 

gOOl-—  'S     • 

Ether 
extract 

'godo 

b 

O> 
>O 

0)  •" 

g^.« 

•0-"*0>U5 

e- 

gg 

"gooooo 

ft>        »—  ' 

ft. 

0» 
CO       U5WCN 

T 

9 

>, 

OOOCNOO 

e< 

P 

§          *-H 

a 

digestibili 

i!s!?! 

p 

0   B 

OJ«5- 

"o 

B 

1000X014 

8 

~ 

"S'l 

y  2 

I 

a? 

C 

1 
c. 

0 
y 

i-f 

Dalculatio 

^  CN  co  oo  c^  co 
a 

co 

•J 

J-c 

a 

* 

.    .   .„,    . 

bo 

00 

5 
O 

52 

-d 
_o 

i  ° 

|  :  :  :*•  : 

s 

H 

c 

I 

-8fc 

UJOUSCO     • 

H. 

If 

IM 

Is 

O 

O 

Iddd 

K 

irs§  i 

• 

^<NO 

•OMIN^OO 

fe 

£j 

10 

|S^ 

Bl 

Tf 

O  rfi  f: 

Susroro 
car»     n 

1 

3>«  * 

rients  in  silage  fed 
rients  in  orts  .... 
rients  consumed  . 
rients  in  feces  .  .  . 
rients  digested.  .  . 

15 

nOh 

33333 

O 

CO 


1* 

000? 

COCO 

11 

S5f 

!7   K 

*  0 

'  °  i. 

coe 

OOC5 

-o 

1*1 

o  >o 

00  "5 

bS  P 

COCO 

o  °  a 
0 

v  S 

11 

(H  O 

—  Of 

1 

(NtM 

osoo 

al 

coco 

•a 
a 
« 

'C-o 

0  C 

—  a 

£S 

<n  <n 

S"g 

.SS'C 

««s 

O  o 

1 
L 

H 

2  g 

a  « 

h— I  •    M 


ed  protei 
er  silage, 


Co 
Su 


THE  SUNFLOWER  AS. A  SILAGE  CROP 


225 


3 


II 


0-0 

oe»ooo>   • 

$x 

tS»t  : 

•Mr-  — 

OOOMCOOJ 

3 

1"°° 

^  O  CO  CO  OO  t— 

5  —  —  aseoS 

i 

INNCO 

00000^ 

3 

fe          *-H 

ft 

a 

S? 

0>CO« 

.| 

ooooo 

£ 

ft 

)f  digestib 

2  <35  O  00  30  O 

b 

8 

o 

O-<  OJ 

o 

OW-HTCt- 

-o 

Compos 

i- 

Calculat 

ilSlll 

= 

:S 

.     .     .31     . 

g 

1    :° 

i;;!e; 

8 

CO  —  CO 

ot-coo»    • 

I000' 

w-  o  oo  -i  oo    • 

fcSS 

ONOOCOfrJ 

S 

I** 

2  CO  O  —  CM  00 
IM       —  —  " 

•M 

?o 

§o  — 

OON 

So  coo 

1 

ents  in  ailage  fed  .... 
ents  in  orts  
ents  consumed  
ents  in  feces  
ents  digested  

X 

IS 
I 

-3 

"o 

-~f    r    I' 

i-     U    fc.    t-    « 

<-^ 

33333 

0 

~-<N90t- 

0000> 

i;-: 

^eo  co  O  O    • 

^.S5;g 

Nacot^o 

S! 

a.000 

ft  00       ^  CO  ^* 

0 

«3SS 

CO  t*»  CO  Is"  O5 

f~ 

ftOOOO(^ 

a 

00  —  t-CO'* 

g 

^.•^r-» 

^ 

3 

ot-aooco 

- 

§,(-»•« 

>f  digestib 

•  00  Ob*  CO  *-< 

K 

8 

_o 

-S58 

a 
o 

WrCOCON 

5 

1 
o 
O 

I-1-"0 

Calculat 

Qi 

** 

-     '§J 

.   .   -o   • 

2 

1.     :° 

I  ;  ;  ;s  i 

g 

i 

^•-N0> 

«0>0t~     • 

"o 

ft000 

|Sco^o   : 

c  nitrogen 

tfooS 

WCOt-^CO 

§ 

1 

a" 

—  COOOC3500 

X 

\ 

Q 

"o 

a 
a 

^•"•"COO 
SgOCM 

after  deducti 
cutting, 
d  cutting. 

1 
08  -2  O 

:3  "-  * 
dBOw 

Nutrients  in  ailage  fed  
Nutrients  in  orts  
Nutrients  conaumed  
Nutrients  in  feces  
Nutrients  digested  

Coef.  of  digestibility  

'Corrected  protein  coefficient 
'Sunflower  silage,  Silo  8,  first 
'Sunflower  silage,  Silo  7,  secoi 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS  URBANA 


